[Openstack-operators] Router associated with multiple l3 agents

2015-11-24 Thread Matt Jarvis
Hi All In the last week or so we've seen a couple of customer issues where a router is associated with more than one l3 agent, which obviously causes significant connectivity weirdness. ❯ neutron l3-agent-list-hosting-router 951c8ec9-9a6c-4c6d-9d6d-049b3dee7f6f +-

Re: [Openstack-operators] Router associated with multiple l3 agents

2015-11-24 Thread Assaf Muller
The HA routers feature we merged in Juno, and those are scheduled to multiple agents. If you source admin credentials and 'neutron router-show 951c8ec9-9a6c-4c6d-9d6d-049b3dee7f6f' is the 'HA' flag set to True? Otherwise, this is a really weird bug which I've never seen before. On Tue, Nov 24, 201

Re: [Openstack-operators] Router associated with multiple l3 agents

2015-11-24 Thread Matt Jarvis
Nope, the HA flag is definitely set to false. Here's another example : root@osnet0:~# neutron l3-agent-list-hosting-router be651d53-1dd2-46eb-8d57-7e2aafd6ff57 +--+++---+ | id | host | admin_state

Re: [Openstack-operators] Router associated with multiple l3 agents

2015-11-24 Thread Assaf Muller
On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 5:26 PM, Matt Jarvis wrote: > Nope, the HA flag is definitely set to false. Here's another example : > > root@osnet0:~# neutron l3-agent-list-hosting-router > be651d53-1dd2-46eb-8d57-7e2aafd6ff57 > > +--+++---+

Re: [Openstack-operators] Router associated with multiple l3 agents

2015-11-24 Thread Joe Topjian
Hi Matt, > It's also weird that we've only seen this when the environment has been > built using terraform. This particular customer re-creates the issue every > time they rebuild. > I work on the OpenStack support for Terraform, so I might be able to help with this. Could you provide an example T

Re: [Openstack-operators] Router associated with multiple l3 agents

2015-12-11 Thread Matt Jarvis
We were hoping that upgrading to Kilo might magically fix this, but we've still seen it occurring, although it seems to be happening less. Is it a database constraint that's supposed to stop this being possible ? I'm wondering if somehow through multiple upgrades we're missing something in the data