On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 1:36 AM, Sam McLeod <mailingli...@smcleod.net> wrote:
> Thank you for the information Dan, Dominik and Didi, > > To avoid logging yet another bug for this issue, I've updated bug > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 as you've mentioned > with the brief of our conversation here. > > By the way, it is very useful to name a bonded interface things other than > bondXYZ, for example, you might have 6 bonds, each of a different network > or native VLAN. > It helps with debugging, troubleshooting and logging if the interface is > named after the (native) network, e.g. your iSCSI storage network might > have a bond called 'storage', while your management or hypervisor network > might have a bond named 'mgmt' then perhaps you have 'data' bond that might > have several vlans off it such as 'db' (database), 'dmz', 'staff' etc... > depending on how and where you chop your network up. > When I was a sysadmin I used to call my bonds bondFUNCTION. This way I both had a prefix 'bond' that readily showed it's a bond, and a suffix showing its function. IMO oVirt should allow any bond names. If we do decide to limit them at all, I'd limit only in a negative way - what's not allowed. E.g. it makes sense to me if we reject prefixes that are common for non-bonds (eth, en, wl, br etc), but even that I am not sure is so important. > > -- > Sam McLeod > https://smcleod.net > https://twitter.com/s_mcleod > > On 7 Jan 2018, at 6:08 pm, Yedidyah Bar David <d...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 7:44 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <dan...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 4, 2018 at 5:50 AM, Sam McLeod <mailingli...@smcleod.net> >> wrote: >> > I'm having a problem where when setting up hosted engine deployment it >> fails >> > stating that the selected bond name is bad. >> > >> > "code=25, message=bad bond name(s): mgmt)" >> > >> > - Is there a problem similar to >> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1519807 that's known? >> > > Please note that this is just but one bug in a series/tree of > related bugs, some of which are open. If you decide to follow > Dan's suggestion, perhaps reuse one of the others, or perhaps > even better - open a new one, and eventually one or more will > be closed as duplicate of one or more of the others. Sadly, > not all of them link properly to each other, and at least one > which was fixed caused another bug, so the fix was reverted. > See also e.g. all of the discussion in: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459229 > > > >> > - If it seems to be this bug, is it preferred that I simply update the >> > existing, closed issue as I have done, or open a new bug? >> > >> > -- >> > Sam McLeod >> > https://smcleod.net >> > https://twitter.com/s_mcleod >> >> I see that you are trying to use a bond interface named "mgmt". >> To avoid confusion while debugging a system, Vdsm has opted to allow >> only bond names starting with "bond" followed by one or more decimal >> digits. Anything else is considered "bad bond". >> >> I prefer keeping the "bond" prefix compulsory, but I'd like to hear >> why using different names is useful. >> >> You can reopen this bug, but please move it to vdsm and rename it: it >> should be something like "Allow any bondXYZ name for bonds" or "Allow >> any bond name" and explain there why it is a good idea. >> >> Dominik, is there an Engine-side limitation on bond names? >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> > > > > -- > Didi > > > -- Didi
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
