Hi Darren, Maybe I'm getting confused with an issue I had with the Agents around that time! The error message I got was very cryptic. Having a fresh look at the source code:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/04cdd90a84f4be5ba02778fe0cd352a4b1c39a13/utils/src/org/apache/cloudstack/utils/identity/ManagementServerNode.java Would suggest that it gets: private static final long s_nodeId = MacAddress. getMacAddress().toLong(); and ensures it's <=0 in the check() function, which is run by the SystemIntegrityChecker. Hopefully it is just a MAC Address issue, what would the IntegrityChecker be looking for? Thanks, Marty On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Darren Shepherd < darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> wrote: > Do you have a specific error from a log? I was not aware that > CloudStack would look for interfaces w/ eth*, em*. In the code it > just does "ifconfig -a" to list the devices. By creating a bond, the > mac address CloudStack finds will probably change then I could imagine > something could possibly fail. > > Darren > > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Marty Sweet <msweet....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Guys. > > > > I am planning on upgrading my 4.1.1 infrastructure to 4.2 over the > weekend. > > > > When testing my 4.1.1 setup I ran across a problem where a TOR switch > > failure would cause an outage to the management server. The agents use 2 > > NICs for all management traffic using bonds. > > When I tried to configure the management server to use a bond0 in simple > > active-passive mode (like I use for my agent management network), > > cloudstack-management would not start due to 'Integrity Issues', which at > > the time I located back to a IntegitryChecker which ensures the > interfaces > > of eth* em* or some others were taking the IP of management server. > > > > My question is does this limitation still exist and if so, can it be > > overcome by adding bond* to the list of allowed interface names and > > compiling the management server from source? > > I would love to hear input to this, it seems bizarre to me that it is > > difficult to add simple but effective network redundancy to the > management > > server. > > > > For scenario basis, this is the basic redundant network setup I have for > my > > Agents: > > 4x KVM Hosts all with 4 NICs - 2 bonds (Private/Public Traffic) > > > > Example Host: > > ------------------Interconnect--------------- > > TOR 1 --------- TOR 2 > > --------------------- --------------------- > > | Management | > > | Tagged VLANs | > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > KVM Cloudstack Hypervisor > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > | Public Traffic | > > | Tagged VLANS | > > | LACP Aggregation | > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > Core Router > > ---------------------------------------------------- > > > > There are also LACP links with STP rules between the TOR switches are the > > core device to allow for interconnect failure so the TORs do not become > > isolated, but I have excluded that for simplicity. > > > > > > I would have thought it would be easy to create a bond for my management > > node and connect the two NICs to both the TOR switches, but that didn't > > work in 4.1.1 due to my reasons above. > > > > Thanks! > > Marty >
