/srv/irclogs.ubuntu.com/2014/06/09/#maas.txt

=== vladk|offline is now known as vladk
=== CyberJacob|Away is now known as CyberJacob
=== CyberJacob is now known as CyberJacob|Away
=== med_ is now known as 1JTAAEE11
jtvallenap: can't say I like the split-range solution, but I do appreciate the potential rabbit hole...  So the default is just a split-down-the-middle kind of line?09:12
allenapjtv: I think bigjools was falling on the side of making the static range bigger than the dynamic range. 1:3 maybe?09:19
jtvThinking out loud...  I guess the need for the dynamic range depends on two factors: hosts that you want in the dynamic range, and lease times for transient leases.09:22
=== vladk is now known as vladk|offline
jtvIf we had separate networks, I guess it might make sense to restrict routing of BMC addresses, and just leave the BMCs in the dynamic network.  But I guess that's not applicable to the split range.09:23
=== vladk|offline is now known as vladk
jtvSo the dynamic range would be unallocated machines and additional unmanaged local services.09:24
jtvYou'd mostly want local services exposed on reliable IPs though, so probably not much of that.09:25
jtvHmm... maybe in the future if we found that a bunch of machines only work for other machines on the same network.09:27
jtvAllocating static IPs won't be any great pain though unless it becomes a part of security policy, and we couldn't recommend that with a split range.09:28
allenapjtv: To complicate matters, apparently BMCs are often put on separate networks anyway, and given static addresses by hand.09:29
allenapMaybe that simplifies things :)09:29
jtvThey should be, yes — unless admins decide that it's a fully controlled network.09:30
jtvI wonder if that includes "tabletop clusters."  I wouldn't mind forcing an opinion about this, but I would mind raising the threshold to getting set up.09:30
jtvIt'd be annoying to set up a MAAS with a /24 network and 100 machines plus BMCs, and find that we can't DHCP them all.09:31
jtvOTOH, "don't do that then."09:32
allenapjtv: I think it’s only a policy decision by larger customers. Tabletop clusters are probably all single network09:32
allenapjtv: Indeed it would :-/09:32
jtvThe initial setup period may be an example of a situation we think of as uncommon: loads of unallocated machines.09:33
jtvSo I would say that the static and dynamic range must both be large enough to accommodate all your machines anyway.  Fifty-fifty may simply be the easiest way to "sell" that notion.09:34
jtvMaybe we should describe the problem as “minimising the cost to your network's address range.”09:35
jtvIf we do a 3:1 split one way or the other, then the worst case is requiring 4 times as much IP space as the machines would normally require.09:36
jtvThat's OK if we can _reliably_ model the needs; the best case is requiring ⅓ more IP range than the bare machines need, which is nice.09:37
jtvIt's also OK if we can _reasonably_ ask people to work around a shortage if it appears.09:38
jtv(We can perhaps ask people to move dynamically-addressed machines to static addresses, but not the other way around.)09:39
jtvOTOH if we run out of dynamic addresses we can "borrow" from the static range.09:42
allenapjtv: Given the use of containers and, when they’re on the same network, BMCs, we may want to have the dynamic range be a multiple of the static range.09:42
allenaprather than the other way around.09:42
jtvYeah.  It doesn't suit the steady state very well though.09:42
jtvWe could also treat the dynamic range as nothing more than a loading dock for the static range.09:44
jtvWhere everything that shows up in the dynamic range gets lifted into the static range.09:45
jtv(Assuming we can find a way to convince systems that their old DHCP lease is worthless and they need to request a new one.)09:45
jtvSorry for re-doing much of the Austin discussion; there wasn't quite enough time to go through the whole problem and solution there IIRC.09:46
allenapjtv: That would be okay. It implies that we need a way to allocate static addresses to containers and BMCs.09:47
jtvYes, we'd effectively be managing our own DHCP but piggybacking on dhcpd for the protocol niceties.09:48
allenapjtv: I think the reason we keep circling back to this conversation is that the split-range solution is not much of a solution. It’s giving us a new set of headaches.09:48
jtvYes...  Horrible unforeseen complications aside I quite liked the idea of link-local addresses myself.09:49
jtvI'll say this for the fifty-percent solution: it puts a simple and reasonable upper bound on the cost to your address range.09:50
jtv|range| ≥ 2×|nics| + 209:51
jtv(Where the +2 comes from broadcast & base addresses)09:52
allenapjtv: Sounds good to me. Without a clairvoyant AI in MAAS I doubt we’ll do any better :)09:52
jtvYou don't need a clairvoyant AI.  You need a paranoid one.09:53
jtvClairvoyance is great for average cases, but paranoid limits worst cases.09:53
allenapHehe. Or Go. Go solves everything.09:54
=== kentb-out is now known as kentb
=== matsubara is now known as matsubara-lunch
jtvWho's up for a pre-imp about DNS changes for the new DHCP range?15:11
allenapjtv: I am. Sorry I didn’t see this until now.16:03
allenapjhobbs: Thanks for testing the lease parsing thing.16:03
rkdemon2Hi,16:04
jhobbsallenap: np16:04
allenapjhobbs: One thing: you need to change the verification-needed tag to verification-done.16:04
rkdemon2I am new to this entire domain of openstack/maas etc. I am trying to deply juju on my platform. As a precurosr I needed to have a maas cluster up: I created a maas cluster with one node (can add more), but one for now. The "nodes" on the maas server page shows this:       ubuntu1         52:54:00:b7:fb:7e      Commissioning   default16:06
rkdemon2I am looking for a way to test this before attempting to deply juju.16:06
rkdemon2Any help would be seriously awesome!!16:06
jhobbsallenap: done16:06
rkdemon2anyone ?16:12
jhobbsrkdemon2: https://maas.ubuntu.com/docs/juju-quick-start.html16:15
rkdemon2jhobbs: I intend to use that link but wanted to know if there's an easy way to tell if the cluster is indeed setup.16:16
rkdemon2jhobbs: When I "add a node" to the maas server, does the fact that the node get added enough to indicate it is setup  ?16:17
jhobbsrkdemon2: you can commission/install it then ssh into it16:17
rkdemon2to clarify, I added the node as a virsh node.16:17
rkdemon2i.e specified the mac id of the virsh virtual machine created on another server as a node16:18
jhobbsdid you setup power controls for it?16:18
rkdemon2no I do not know how to .. do I need it ?16:19
jhobbsyeah - http://maas.ubuntu.com/docs/nodes.html16:19
rkdemon2the vm is up  and created etc16:19
jhobbsthere is a section on that doc talking about power controls for vm nodes16:19
rkdemon2ok thanks.. let me read .. thank yo ufor your help16:20
jhobbsnp16:20
=== matsubara-lunch is now known as matsubara
=== CyberJacob|Away is now known as CyberJacob
=== roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk
=== roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr
d_`is there any sort of managed login strategy for maas?19:46
d_`each admin has their own key, but we share cluster resources19:47
d_`it _seems_ like it's trying to associate provisioned servers to a single user19:51
=== roadmr is now known as roadmr_afk
=== vladk is now known as vladk|offline
=== roadmr_afk is now known as roadmr
dpb1Hi -- when you create a container (lxc) on maas through juju, you get a non-critical error: 'sudo: unable to resolve host juju-machine-0-lxc-2' when running sudo commands -- should this be a bug in juju?  Maas?20:44
=== CyberJacob is now known as CyberJacob|Away
lazyPowerdpb1: thats kind of expected behavior since that hostname is unresolveable. Whats your resulting hostname in /etc/hosts of the lxc container?22:07

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.7 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!