User1: User2 around?
User1: User2 i'm seeing this: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5676753/ any thoughts?
User2: User1 yepâ¦
User2: User1 btw, you still need to merge https://code.launchpad.net/~andreserl/maas/ipmi_usercreation_ilo_versions_trunk/+merge/148579 in trunk right?
User1: User2 yeah so the reason why that did land in 1.2 and not trunk is because julian thought it would be better to have the testing of that in trunk,s ince it didn't make sense for 1.2
User1: User2 and the above might be due to the nodegroup change?
User2: User1 right.  Julian and I agreed that we don't really have time to add the testing so let's land this as is and file a bug about the lack of test for this.
User1: User2 ok sounds good to me
User2: User1 the error you pasted is due to the fact that 2 nodegroups match when we're trying to determine to which nodegroup a node should be attached.
User1: User2 so same network?
User2: Yeah, the IP of the connecting node belongs to a network to which for nodegroups are connected to.
User2: Thus we cannot determine to which is should be attached.
User2: You can probably fix this by removing the network in question on one side.
User1: yeah makes sense, I was jus testing whether your changes do fix the issue, but I just realized I was managing interfaces in both nodes
User1: so makes sense
User1: User2 so this is a result of the revert you provided me with yesterday, righ? Since the current escenario I'm testing was working before that change
User1: User2 and this means that we cannot have 2 clusters in the same network
User3: User1 I've just had a chat with rvba, and we have a plan...
User2: User1 exactly
User2: User1 you can have two clusters in the same network, but you have to manually remove an interface (in MAAS) on one of the nodegroups.
User1: User2 ok I know how to setup an environment with 2 different clusters in different networks that's quite easy to do with kvm :)
User1: User2 I see
User1: User3 cool! what's the plan :)?
User2: User1 to tell to MAAS: this network, although physically attached to 2 nodegroups, is actually managed by *this* nodegroup.
User1: right! makes sense
User1: User2 since the above error shows up even when both networks are *unmanaged*
User3: User1 I'll change the find_nodegroup() function to prioritise managed interfaces, but fall back to non-managed interfaces. Additionally, if more than one non-managed interface matches, we blow up, suggesting that either one interface is marked as managed, or to remove the other interface.
User1: err both cluster interface are unmanaged
User2: User1 indeed, you need to *remove* one interface on one of the nodegroups/
User2: In your case, you don't have any managed interface.
User1: User2 right, say the master running in the region controller should not have any interface in the same network as the other cluster (bnoth managed/unmanaged)
User2: User1 exactly.
User1: User3 makes sense to me. But wouldn't it make better sense that if there's 2 cluster in the same network, to simply use 1 of those 2?
User1: User2 ok makes sense. Ok will setup an environment and test
User3: User1 That might be okay. I can't think of an issue with that offhand. rvba?
User2: User3 seems reasonable, as long as this only happens when no managed interfaces on this network are found I think that's ok.
User3: User2 If there's a managed interface, we will choose that one anyway. What if we find two managed interfaces for the same network?
User1: if we found 2 managed interfaces in the same network that most likely would be the case that i'm using different ranges for DHCP. (which is what I was doing right now).
User1: i guess it would make sense to try to detect from which one the node pxebooted from
User1: if not fallback to the first one
User3: User1 When an interface is managed, the DHCP ranges are defined by the netmask, iirc, so you can't have two cluster controllers managing the same network.
User2: Indeed, I don't think that's possible in MAAS right now.
User1: User3 right, but I can have 2 DHCP servers saying "Server IP between 91.69.162.6 - 200" and another one that will server "(404)351-9384"
User1: s/server/serve
User3: User1 You /can/ do that, but it's not a supported configuration: the interface should be marked as unmanaged.
User1: alright :)
User3: Finding a node's nodegroup (aka cluster controller) in a nutshell: 1 managed interface on the network = choose this one; >1 managed interfaces on the network = misconfiguration; >1 unmanaged interfaces on a network = choose any
User3: Version 2 of Finding a node's nodegroup (aka cluster controller) in a nutshell: 1 managed interface on the network = choose this one; >1 managed interfaces on the network = misconfiguration; 1 unmanaged interface on a network = choose this one; >1 unmanaged interfaces on a network = choose any
User1: User3 sounds good to me
User3: Cool.
User1: User3 oh btw... i just made this change to python-tx-tftp in raring. Spads was getting his connection dropped and him and Daviey investigated and came up with the solution: http://pastebin.ubuntu.com/5676874/
User3: User1 That's cool :) I'll submit that upstream (and also press for landing of the other patches).
User1: User3 that would be great!
User4: Maas Web Interface not reachable after new installation! | http://askubuntu.com/q/277874
maas
Ubuntu IRC