On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Sam McLeod <mailinglists@smcleod.net> wrote:
Thank you for the information Dan, Dominik and Didi,
To avoid logging yet another bug for this issue, I've updated bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 as you've mentioned with the brief of our conversation here.
By the way, it is very useful to name a bonded interface things other than bondXYZ, for example, you might have 6 bonds, each of a different network or native VLAN. It helps with debugging, troubleshooting and logging if the interface is named after the (native) network, e.g. your iSCSI storage network might have a bond called 'storage', while your management or hypervisor network might have a bond named 'mgmt' then perhaps you have 'data' bond that might have several vlans off it such as 'db' (database), 'dmz', 'staff' etc... depending on how and where you chop your network up.
When I was a sysadmin I used to call my bonds bondFUNCTION. This way I both had a prefix 'bond' that readily showed it's a bond, and a suffix showing its function. IMO oVirt should allow any bond names. If we do decide to limit them at all, I'd limit only in a negative way - what's not allowed. E.g. it makes sense to me if we reject prefixes that are common for non-bonds (eth, en, wl, br etc), but even that I am not sure is so important.
-- Sam McLeod https://smcleod.net https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
On 7 Jan 2018, at 6:08 pm, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod <mailinglists@smcleod.net> wrote:
I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it fails stating that the selected bond name is bad.
"code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)"
- Is there a problem similar to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known?
Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree of related bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to follow Dan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhaps even better - open a new one, and eventually one or more will be closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly, not all of them link properly to each other, and at least one which was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted. See also e.g. all of the discussion in:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229
- If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug?
-- Sam McLeod https://smcleod.net https://twitter.com/s_mcleod
I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt". To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond".
I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear why using different names is useful.
You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea.
Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names? _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
-- Didi
-- Didi