From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BBC27A3EB for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:04:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 58F5327CE4 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:04:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8DA4C27CD8 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:04:50 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6579F46529 for ; Fri, 7 May 2021 10:04:50 +0200 (CEST) To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210430135437.4816-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <65ceea98-06f2-5e6e-e2f4-1d2b07c9a2b9@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <4412e72e-a19f-3c46-c259-f1efdcd4a7ab@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 10:04:44 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <65ceea98-06f2-5e6e-e2f4-1d2b07c9a2b9@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.004 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [mon.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC manager] fix #2422: allow multiple Ceph public networks X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 May 2021 08:04:51 -0000 Am 04.05.21 um 10:24 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 4/30/21 15:54, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> picked up from an old patch by Alwin[0]. >> >> The first four patches are cleanups/preparation. >> >> The last patch is the big one which introduces the handling of >> multiple IP >> addresses. Quickly tested with a dual IPv4/IPv6 setup and an external >> client >> and didn't see any issues (altough I might've missed something in my >> struggle >> to get the network configuration right). It is a bit messy (not sure >> that is >> fully possible to avoid) and I'd like to test it some more, so sending >> it as an >> RFC. Would be great if somebody else could test it too. >> >> Note that you also need a dual stack cluster network even if it's >> separate from >> the public network, so the OSDs will start up. >> >> [0]: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2020-March/042304.html >> >> Fabian Ebner (5): >>    api: ceph: mon: split up arguments for run_command >>    api: ceph: create mon: handle ms_bind_ipv* options more generally >>    api: ceph: create mon: factor out monmaptool command >>    api: ceph: create mon: explicitly add subsequent monitors to the >>      monmap >>    fix #2422: allow multiple Ceph public networks >> >>   PVE/API2/Ceph/MON.pm | 228 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------ >>   1 file changed, 163 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) >> > > LGTM, and tested ok, only noticed one small thing > > it is possible to give the same ip address twice, > this breaks the monitor (i cannot start it, but cannot destroy it either) > > e.g. > > pveceph mon create --mon-address '10.0.0.10,10.0.0.10' > > it adds it with the ip twice to the monmap > this fails to start (because the port is bound already) > but destroying it fails with 'no such monitor id' > > Thanks for testing, and nice find! I'll make sure to handle that in the next version.