Hi,
I've just applied a patch to fix that. It will be available in OpenNebula
4.6.
http://dev.opennebula.org/issues/2573
cheers,
Jaime
On Wed, Dec 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Jaime Melis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think you are right. I've created a new ticket to fix this for
> OpenNebula 4.6:
> http://dev.
Hi,
I think you are right. I've created a new ticket to fix this for OpenNebula
4.6:
http://dev.opennebula.org/issues/2573
cheers,
Jaime
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:30 PM, cmcc.dylan wrote:
>
> Hi.
> I don't use >= 4.0. But I think the code has a little problem, that is,
> we should add a lo
Hi.
I don't use >= 4.0. But I think the code has a little problem, that is, we
should add a lock for "get_interfaces" not for "create_bridge".
At 2013-12-12 17:05:03,"Jaime Melis" wrote:
Hi,
not sure I follow, but given that the rules are idempotent if the bridge
doesn't exist it will
Hi,
not sure I follow, but given that the rules are idempotent if the bridge
doesn't exist it will be created, and if it does, it won't.
Have you tried this with ONE >= 4.0 and still fails?
regards,
Jaime
On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 4:32 AM, cmcc.dylan wrote:
> Hi，Jainme.
>
> I think curruent
Hi，Jainme.
I think curruent codes don't have solved the bug complelely. The key problems
the the following snippets are executed parallel.
class OpenNebulaHM < OpenNebulaNetwork
XPATH_FILTER = "TEMPLATE/NIC[VLAN='YES']"
def initialize(vm, deploy_id = nil, hypervisor = nil)
sup
Hi,
yes, this is a known bug which is already solved in OpenNebula >= 4.0 by
implementing locking mechanisms.
http://dev.opennebula.org/issues/1722
cheers,
Jaime
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 9:46 AM, cmcc.dylan wrote:
> Hi everyone！
>
>I find a problem when we create two or more instances on
Hi everyone！
I find a problem when we create two or more instances on one host at the
same time，we meet the error "device onebr alreay exists can't create bridge
with the same name".
The reason is that instances all try to create their bridge，although they
check whether or not their
