Re: [zones-discuss] netmask warning, misconfiguration
I would definitely run zonecfg -z int-sagent-1-z1 info to check what the zone thinks is the netmask. I suspect if you haven't defined the '/24' it will pick the default for the address class. In this case, '/16' IIRC. Sometimes documentation gets old... Antonello Jordan Brown (Sun) wrote: > Antonello Cruz wrote: >>> zoneadm: zone 'int-sagent-1-z1': WARNING: bge0:1: no matching subnet >>> found in netmasks(4) for 172.20.46.188; using default of 255.255.0.0. >> How did you setup the IP address for that zone? >> >> Did you use, in zonecfg: >> zonecfg:int-sagent-1-z1:net> set address=172.20.46.188/24 >> ? > > No, no "/24". (I see how that could affect the picture, but it seems > like /etc/netmasks should work too, and the message certainly suggests it.) ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] netmask warning, misconfiguration
Jordan, How did you setup the IP address for that zone? Did you use, in zonecfg: zonecfg:int-sagent-1-z1:net> set address=172.20.46.188/24 ? Antonello Jordan Brown (Sun) wrote: > I get: > > zoneadm: zone 'int-sagent-1-z1': WARNING: bge0:1: no matching subnet > found in netmasks(4) for 172.20.46.188; using default of 255.255.0.0. > > but my /etc/netmasks (on both the global and local zone) looks good: > > 172.20.46.0255.255.255.0 > > (I also tried 172.20.0.0 on the theory that maybe it wanted me to set > the netmask for the entire Class B, but no dice.) > > I see many instances of this message in BugTraq and Google searches, but > I don't immediately see any resolutions. > ___ > zones-discuss mailing list > zones-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
Re: [zones-discuss] [storage-discuss] Using LiveUpgrade with Zones
I don't think live_upgrade(5) is zfs friendly. I've tried to use live_upgrade(5) with my zones in a zfs filesystem and it didn't worked. You could try to detach the zone before the luupgrade and then attach it in the new BE, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Antonello Jeff Cheeney wrote: > Maybe someone on the install or zones discussion lists can help answer > this question. > > > Giovanni Schmid wrote: >> I have read different articles/docs/posts about solaris zones and >> liveupgrade issues until now; however, I have some doubts about the right >> way to deploy liveupgrade boot environments in the following case. >> I have a system with two disks configured as "mirrors" (that is, the same >> fdisk partition and VTOC). >> On the primary disk, I installed Solaris 10 8/07 with two sparse root zones, >> say Z1 and Z2. Just two file systems were settled on the primary disk: an >> UFS mounted on /, and a ZFS pool mirroring slice 4 of the two disks and >> mounted on /zfspool on the 1st disk. The UFS is intended to contain all but >> user's homes. These are served through a ZFS, namely /zfspool/users/home. >> Only zone Z2 inherits this ZFS, via the "add fs" setting. >> All that premised, my questions are: >> What is the correct way of using Live Upgrade for this case ? Would >> something like: >> >> # lucreate -c bootenv1 -m /:c2d0s0:ufs -n bootenv2 >> >> be sufficient ? That is, will Z2 in bootenv2 "see" /zfspool/users/home ? >> >> Any help is appreciated ! >> >> g.s >> >> >> This message posted from opensolaris.org >> ___ >> storage-discuss mailing list >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss >> > > ___ > zones-discuss mailing list > zones-discuss@opensolaris.org ___ zones-discuss mailing list zones-discuss@opensolaris.org
