This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--GgKOKS9dKuvaGXhsv0OySgdzWeGX9F53M
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="Uxz42q1pZK2pn27GiOl1euQurREujPVHS";
protected-headers="v1"
From: ~Stack~ <i.am.stack(a)gmail.com>
To: users <users(a)ovirt.org>
Message-ID: <a03943a4-0db1-9e5f-50fc-0736606eea20(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Unable to add host to cluster after network
References: <1d9816aa-6d14-d62b-279b-95c13adec21d(a)gmail.com>
<CAFS8XSUKAmyXZ6wKW1O7un74pHp9V0rTfu6TfiZRcZRO8FO+yA(a)mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFS8XSUKAmyXZ6wKW1O7un74pHp9V0rTfu6TfiZRcZRO8FO+yA(a)mail.gmail.com>
--Uxz42q1pZK2pn27GiOl1euQurREujPVHS
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 04/18/2018 08:41 AM, Eitan Raviv wrote:
Hi Stack,
=20
I read through your ordeal and I would like to post a few comments:
Thanks I appreciate it!
* When I try to reproduce your scenario with the second network set
t=
o
'not required' before on-boarding the second host,
it=C2=A0 is proc=
essed
and set to 'up' by the engine without any hiccups or any
errors in
the log.
Hrm. Yeah, I think I can reproduce the failure. I've only done it once,
but I have the chance to test so just to make sue I've got the right
information I'm going to run a another test specifically for it.
* On the other hand, if the network is 'required' the
scenario
reproduces,
Whoo! I'm not completely crazy! I'm just lucky to discover a new bug I
suppose. :-)
but on my setup it can be resolved: initially the second
network is proclaimed missing and the host becomes non-operational,=
with its interfaces disappearing from the engine as you
reported.
But if the second network is rendered 'not-required' or even delete=
d
for that matter from the engine, engine succeeds in reconnecting
to=
the second host within a couple of minutes, and the host gains
'up'=
status.
Setting the second network to 'not-required' does not seem to break my
hosts out of their infinite loop.
I haven't tried deleting the second network yet. Let me try that before
I rebuild to test the first point.
Thank you for your feedback. It is much appreciated.
~Stack~
--Uxz42q1pZK2pn27GiOl1euQurREujPVHS--
--GgKOKS9dKuvaGXhsv0OySgdzWeGX9F53M
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2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=9Nj+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--GgKOKS9dKuvaGXhsv0OySgdzWeGX9F53M--