1. you can enable the providers via cloudmonkey, not by db. 2. all physical networks and network offerings should have tags 3. You should see other exceptions than InsufficientServerCapacityException in management-server.log
-Wei On Tue, 12 Oct 2021 at 11:09, <cristian.c@istream.today> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I have found the issue but not I have a different one 😊 > > > > When I add the network, if I check the enable providers, there a no > providers enabled.. if I enabled the providers from DB, then I see the > networking offering with tag also for second physical network. > > > > Right now if I try to deploy a guest network under the physical network 1 > (guestA) or 2(guestb) I get a general error : > > > > "2021-10-12 04:46:52,357 INFO [c.c.v.VirtualMachineManagerImpl] > (Work-Job-Executor-11:ctx-79d80dc9 job-67381/job-67382 ctx-5a1daca5) > (logid:395eb51a) Insufficient capacity > > com.cloud.exception.InsufficientServerCapacityException: Unable to create > a deployment for VM[DomainRouter|r-4559-VM]Scope=interface > com.cloud.dc.DataCenter; id=7 > > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.orchestrateStart(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:1119) > > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.advanceStart(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:926) > > at > com.cloud.network.router.NetworkHelperImpl.start(NetworkHelperImpl.java:279) > > at > com.cloud.network.router.NetworkHelperImpl.startVirtualRouter(NetworkHelperImpl.java:358) > > at > com.cloud.network.router.NetworkHelperImpl.startRouters(NetworkHelperImpl.java:343) > > at > org.cloud.network.router.deployment.RouterDeploymentDefinition.deployVirtualRouter(RouterDeploymentDefinition.java:206) > > at > com.cloud.network.element.VirtualRouterElement.prepare(VirtualRouterElement.java:285) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.engine.orchestration.NetworkOrchestrator.prepareElement(NetworkOrchestrator.java:1485) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.engine.orchestration.NetworkOrchestrator.prepareNic(NetworkOrchestrator.java:1840) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.engine.orchestration.NetworkOrchestrator.prepare(NetworkOrchestrator.java:1774) > > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.orchestrateStart(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:1158) > > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.orchestrateStart(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:5502) > > at > java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native > Method) > > at > java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62) > > at > java.base/jdk.internal.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43) > > at java.base/java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:566) > > at > com.cloud.vm.VmWorkJobHandlerProxy.handleVmWorkJob(VmWorkJobHandlerProxy.java:107) > > at > com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.handleVmWorkJob(VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:5669) > > at > com.cloud.vm.VmWorkJobDispatcher.runJob(VmWorkJobDispatcher.java:102) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.framework.jobs.impl.AsyncJobManagerImpl$5.runInContext(AsyncJobManagerImpl.java:620) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.ManagedContextRunnable$1.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:48) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext$1.call(DefaultManagedContext.java:55) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext.callWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:102) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.DefaultManagedContext.runWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:52) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.ManagedContextRunnable.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:45) > > at > org.apache.cloudstack.framework.jobs.impl.AsyncJobManagerImpl$5.run(AsyncJobManagerImpl.java:568) > > at > java.base/java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.call(Executors.java:515) > > at > java.base/java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:264) > > at > java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1128) > > at > java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:628) > > at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:829) > > " > > > > I do not understand what is wrong, doesn't make any sense.. > > > > 1. I add a second network with the name "Physical Network 2" with traffic > Guest. > > 2. I enable the network and providers from DB > > 3. I add tag to the Physical Network 1 and Physical Network 2 > > 4. I create a share network offering with tag for both networks. > > 5. Enable the new created network offering > > 6. Create a network with any of the network offering with tag > > 7. Deploy VM, restart network, clean network = fail with the same error. > > > > This issue is happening only when I use tags. > > > > > > Any suggestions? > > > > > > Thank you, > > Cristian > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: vas...@gmx.de <vas...@gmx.de> > Sent: Friday, October 8, 2021 12:36 PM > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Multiple Network labels - custom > > > > Does the offering "default a" work as expected - meaning Cloudstack is > deploying the network as expected? > > I can remember that i had some struggle with this, too. > > Maybe, just for verification > > a) Check that the service offering is enabled ( :-) ) > > b) that the "offering access" is configured correct > > > > Maybe just create a test-account und give this account direct access to > the offerings instead provide it public? > > > > regarding the log you provided: Guess it looks good under the hood. > > As written above, when the offering is not showing for a account it was in > my case normaly that the account had no acccess rights for the offering. > > > > Am Fr., 8. Okt. 2021 um 10:13 Uhr schrieb < <mailto: > cristian.c@istream.today> cristian.c@istream.today>: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Right now I have added a second Physical network for Guest traffic > > > with tag "DefaultB" and added "DefaultA" to the one which was already > > > present, I have created new 2 network offering, one for each tag. > > > When I try to create a new Guest network in 4.15.1, I see the offering > > > for tag Default A but not for B when I select the second physical > > > network, nothing visible, I deleted the network, offering, created > again, same thing. > > > > > > "Found physical network id=203 based on requested tags DefaultB > > > 2021-10-08 08:12:32,178 DEBUG [c.c.a.ApiServlet] > > > (qtp182531396-17:ctx-ecf8c295 ctx-1af2acec) (logid:5a80a500) ===END=== > > > 86.125.230.37 -- GET > > > > zoneid=c3b5e5fa-c3e8-49f0-8094-573456a45c00&state=Enabled&tags=DefaultB&guestiptype=Shared&command=listNetworkOfferings&response=json" > > > > > > I'm doing something wrong? > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > Cristian > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: <mailto:vas...@gmx.de> vas...@gmx.de < <mailto:vas...@gmx.de> > vas...@gmx.de> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 6:37 PM > > > To: <mailto:users@cloudstack.apache.org> users@cloudstack.apache.org > > > Subject: Re: Multiple Network labels - custom > > > > > > it should work , as i am am using this for providing some "special" > > > networks myself in my environment. > > > > > > maybe for a better understanding you can take a look at the following > > > <https://www.shapeblue.com/understanding-cloudstacks-physical-networkin> > https://www.shapeblue.com/understanding-cloudstacks-physical-networkin > > > g-architecture/ and there the section "advanced network traffic". > > > there you'll find a diagramm of a scenario, where they provide an mpls > > > network for guest traffic. > > > > > > what i had done to achieve this is (it works but i don't know if this > > > is all best practice): > > > > > > WARNING: When introducing another physical network for e.g guest > > > traffic, the "default" network offerings won't work anymore. CS has no > > > default-allocation to an specified network - At least this is my > experience. > > > You will need to implement tags and create "custome" default network > > > offerings for further usage! > > > > > > - create a new physical network in the zone > > > - add traffic type "guest" > > > - set the networklabel for matching purpose with the nics on the host > > > - define tags for ALL physical networks (at least i needed to. if i am > > > correct if you start tagging, you will have to implement it for all > > > physical networks) > > > - create 2 network offerings each using one of the tags of the > > > physical networks - traffic type guest > > > > > > Then you can create networks, using the new network offerings, which > > > will use the "tagged" physical network --> use the the matching nics > > > on your hosts > > > > > > > > > Am Do., 7. Okt. 2021 um 16:38 Uhr schrieb Cristian Ciobanu > > > < <mailto:cristian.c@istream.today> cristian.c@istream.today>: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > In a much simpler way. > > > > > > > > I have 2 networks, 1 shared and 1 isolated, the problem i have > > > > here, both are using the same guest traffic label, because of this, > > > > I'm not able to use these on different labels/nics, both are using > > > > the same traffic type. Even if I add an additional physical network > > > > i will have only one type of guest traffic... > > > > > > > > I would like to specify a custom traffic type ( guest x) and use > > > > for specific network, shared or isolated. > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if I can replicate this by using tags, will this work? > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Cristian > > > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 7, 2021, 15:22 <mailto:vas...@gmx.de> vas...@gmx.de < > <mailto:vas...@gmx.de> vas...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > >> just my thoughts. > > > >> > > > >> if i am understanding your intention correctly, you want to use a > > > >> dedicated physical network on the hosts for "customized" guest > > > >> traffic, correct? > > > >> > > > >> You will need to add a "new" physical network to the zone with the > > > >> networklabel, assaign the traffic type "guest" and start to use > > > >> tags for the physical networks. > > > >> Afterwards you would need to implement a dedicated network service > > > >> offering for this network - by using a tag to associate the network > > > >> offering to the physical network. > > > >> > > > >> Your idea would currently not work cause the "physical network" in > > > >> a zone is a 1:1 representation of the physical network on the hosts. > > > >> afterwards you have some like a 1:m (one CS physical network - > > > >> many various traffic types possible) but not n:1 (many physical > networks : > > > >> one traffic type - even "worse" you would have different "flavours" > > > >> of one traffic type). > > > >> > > > >> Maybe another way to display the relation (physical Network on host > > > >> - phyical network in a zone - traffic type): > > > >> Currently used in CS: 1 - 1 - m > > > >> > > > >> Not supported in in CS: 1 - n - m > > > >> > > > >> what i understand you are looking for: 2 - 1 - 1 (while the traffic > > > >> type guest would be segmentet into "default" and "custome") > > > >> > > > >> Hope that someone can imagine what i mean :-D > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Am Do., 7. Okt. 2021 um 08:37 Uhr schrieb < <mailto: > cristian.c@istream.today> cristian.c@istream.today>: > > > >> > > > >> > Hello, > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Is there a way to use multiple network labels for the same > > > >> > network type? > > > >> > for example; I have Guest traffic with network label "vSwitch1, > > > >> > but I > > > >> also > > > >> > want to have a vSwitch0 or anything else. If this is not > > > >> > possible, is there a way to create custom networks traffic types > > > >> > using the same type of network offering but create under a > different network. > > > >> > > > > >> > label? > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > I want to have 2 traffic types for Guest, (Guest And > > > >> > GuestCustom) using the same network offering but create the > > > >> > under the different network > > > >> label. > > > >> > The idea is to have the possibility to create/duplicate same type > > > >> > of traffic but deploy under different network label (vSwitchX). > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > Regards, > > > >> > > > > >> > Cristian > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >
