hi, one user told me, that Xen changed the network layout in xen 3.2. The docs and wiki says nothing from that, or i didn''t found it. Where can have a look, what changed, without installing it? cu denny _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Thursday June 05 2008 01:11:20 pm Denny Schierz wrote:> one user told me, that Xen changed the network layout in xen 3.2. The > docs and wiki says nothing from that, or i didn''t found it. Where can > have a look, what changed, without installing it?The most visible change is the default bridge changed from xenbr0 to eth0 (like the physical device before it gets renamed to peth0). _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
hi, jim burns schrieb:> The most visible change is the default bridge changed from xenbr0 to eth0 > (like the physical device before it gets renamed to peth0).hmm, but the bridge has a ip again, like in xen 2.0.7. So, there must be a reason, why it changed again, or not? :-) cu denny -- Stoppt den Überwachungswahn - Stoppt den Schäuble Katalog: http://www.nopsis.de _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Thursday June 05 2008 06:18:37 pm Denny Schierz wrote:> > The most visible change is the default bridge changed from xenbr0 to eth0 > > (like the physical device before it gets renamed to peth0). > > hmm, but the bridge has a ip again, like in xen 2.0.7. So, there must be > a reason, why it changed again, or not? :-)Don''t know *why* it changed, but something has to have an ip. In the xenbr0 days, the physical eth0 was renamed to peth0, and it''s address was xferred to the new eth0 (or dhcp was called again). The only difference now is eth0 is also the bridge now. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On June 5, 2008 04:01 pm jim burns wrote:> On Thursday June 05 2008 06:18:37 pm Denny Schierz wrote: > > > The most visible change is the default bridge changed from xenbr0 > > > to eth0 (like the physical device before it gets renamed to peth0). > > > > hmm, but the bridge has a ip again, like in xen 2.0.7. So, there must > > be a reason, why it changed again, or not? :-) > > Don''t know *why* it changed, but something has to have an ip. In the > xenbr0 days, the physical eth0 was renamed to peth0, and it''s address > was xferred to the new eth0 (or dhcp was called again). The only > difference now is eth0 is also the bridge now.So, how does one configure eth0 to have an IP, and eth1 to be the bridge, without any IP configuration occuring on eth1 or the bridge? -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Thursday June 05 2008 07:09:07 pm Freddie Cash wrote:> So, how does one configure eth0 to have an IP, and eth1 to be the bridge, > without any IP configuration occuring on eth1 or the bridge?On standard xen, if you have two physical nics eth0 & eth1, bridges will be created for them, and the renamed devices peth0 & peth1 will be enslaved to the corresponding bridge, and *something* on those bridges, or the bridge itself, will have an ip. If I read you correctly, you want a non-standard setup. Assuming you don''t have a physical nic eth1, you can create any bridge you want, and say call it eth1, and enslave eth0 (w/ an ip) and peth0 (to do the actual hardware xfers) to it. I believe you can do this with just a simple ''bridge=name netdev=eth0'' clause in your xend-config.sxp. If I have misinterpreted what you need, you will probably need more of a brctl or /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts guru than me :-) _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
hi, jim burns schrieb:> On standard xen, if you have two physical nics eth0 & eth1, bridges will be > created for them, and the renamed devices peth0 & peth1 will be enslaved to > the corresponding bridge, and *something* on those bridges, or the bridge > itself, will have an ip.that is, what i don''t understand. Under xen 2.0.7, we had exactly the same setup. We had a bridge with xenbr0 (or xen-bridge?) with the pyhsical eth0 in it. The bridge was now the interface with a IP. Xen 3.x changed the layout cause for better ethernet compliance. So the bridge had no ip any more. And now Xen goes back ? cu denny <- just a little confused now -- Stoppt den Überwachungswahn - Stoppt den Schäuble Katalog: http://www.nopsis.de _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On June 5, 2008 04:22 pm jim burns wrote:> On Thursday June 05 2008 07:09:07 pm Freddie Cash wrote: > > So, how does one configure eth0 to have an IP, and eth1 to be the > > bridge, without any IP configuration occuring on eth1 or the bridge? > > On standard xen, if you have two physical nics eth0 & eth1, bridges > will be created for them, and the renamed devices peth0 & peth1 will be > enslaved to the corresponding bridge, and *something* on those bridges, > or the bridge itself, will have an ip.Ah, but see, that''s the crux: I don''t want a bridge created on eth0, and I don''t want an IP on eth1. With Xen 3.0.x, this was simple, and easy to do. Just write a wrapper for network-bridge, and in there set vifnum=X netdev=ethX and bridge=xenbrX (where X is 1 and above), then in the VM config file, set bridge=xenbrX to assign each VM to the specified bridge. With Xen 3.1.x and 3.2.x, this is no longer possible (at least I could never get it to work). The default network-bridge checks for an active interface with an IP and uses that as the default bridge. Well, on our servers, eth0 is a 10/100 NIC, eth1 through eth6 are 10/100/1000 NICs. We don''t want to use eth0 for anything but management traffic. network-bridge doesn''t use netdev=, bridge=, or vifnum= in any way, shape, or form. You can''t write a wrapper for it like you could with Xen 3.0.x. And trying to do it manually doesn''t work either as the way the bridge is setup in the dom0 is hokey to say the least and doesn''t work for interfaces without IPs. The only way I could get things to even slightly work in Xen 3.2 was to for udev to rename my NICs to number them in reverse, making the 10/100 port eth6. But, even then, I couldn''t get more than a single bridge to come up in the dom0, and only if I assigned a ficticious IP to that interface first.> If I read you correctly, you want a non-standard setup. Assuming you > don''t have a physical nic eth1, you can create any bridge you want, and > say call it eth1, and enslave eth0 (w/ an ip) and peth0 (to do the > actual hardware xfers) to it. I believe you can do this with just a > simple ''bridge=name netdev=eth0'' clause in your xend-config.sxp.Don''t know how non-standard it is to want a management NIC with an IP, and a bridge without an IP that the domUs will use. Seems perfectly reasonable to me, especially since it worked so nicely in Xen 3.0.x (and is very simple to do with KVM). What would be ideal (and is also something that never worked in Xen) would be to have eth0 be the management NIC, and then bond together eth3 through eth6 as bond0 and then us that as the bridge in the dom0 that all the domUs would use. But, I gave up on that after a few days as I could either have traffic to the dom0 or to the domUs, but not both.> If I have misinterpreted what you need, you will probably need more of > a brctl or /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts guru than me :-)That''s fine. I''ve resigned myself to using Xen 3.0.x with kernel 2.6.18 on our older systems (Tyan Thunder K8SD-Pro boards with dual-Opteron 200s) and KVM on newer systems (Tyan h2000M with 2x dual-core Opteron 2200s). At least on those setups, networking works correctly. -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Friday June 06 2008 06:14:41 am Denny Schierz wrote:> that is, what i don''t understand. Under xen 2.0.7, we had exactly the > same setup. We had a bridge with xenbr0 (or xen-bridge?) with the > pyhsical eth0 in it. The bridge was now the interface with a IP. Xen 3.x > changed the layout cause for better ethernet compliance. So the bridge > had no ip any more. And now Xen goes back ?Yeah, a little insight into the developers minds would be nice. It''s gotten to the point where if you upgrade to a non-bug fix xen (and the shift from 3.1.0 -> 3.1.2 is definitely a non-bug fix only/feature enhancement one), you either have to hack a lot to get your old domu''s to run, or do a test install just to see how the options have been restructured. I will say though, the example files in /etc/xen are usually a good source for syntax changes. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Friday June 06 2008 11:46:36 am Freddie Cash wrote:> With Xen 3.0.x, this was simple, and easy to do. Just write a wrapper for > network-bridge, and in there set vifnum=X netdev=ethX and bridge=xenbrX > (where X is 1 and above), then in the VM config file, set bridge=xenbrX > to assign each VM to the specified bridge. > > With Xen 3.1.x and 3.2.x, this is no longer possible (at least I could > never get it to work). The default network-bridge checks for an active > interface with an IP and uses that as the default bridge. Well, on our > servers, eth0 is a 10/100 NIC, eth1 through eth6 are 10/100/1000 NICs. > We don''t want to use eth0 for anything but management traffic. > > network-bridge doesn''t use netdev=, bridge=, or vifnum= in any way, shape, > or form. You can''t write a wrapper for it like you could with Xen 3.0.x. > And trying to do it manually doesn''t work either as the way the bridge is > setup in the dom0 is hokey to say the least and doesn''t work for > interfaces without IPs.I''ve read this complaint before about xen 3.2 removing those parms, and agree that they are convenient. I''m a little confused, tho'' since Fedora 8/xen 3.1.2 still uses the bridge and netdev vars. I thought all the major changes had been introduced in 3.1.2 as a pre-release to 3.2. Apparently there are more surprises to come! I probably won''t know the joy of configuring a dom0 under Fedora/xen 3.2 for awhile, since F9 doesn''t support dom0 yet :-(> The only way I could get things to even slightly work in Xen 3.2 was to > for udev to rename my NICs to number them in reverse, making the 10/100 > port eth6. But, even then, I couldn''t get more than a single bridge to > come up in the dom0, and only if I assigned a ficticious IP to that > interface first.I was about to suggest that. Oh well. You probably need to setup your own bridge in /etc/sysconfig/networking-scripts/ifcfg-*.> Don''t know how non-standard it is to want a management NIC with an IP, and > a bridge without an IP that the domUs will use. Seems perfectly > reasonable to me, especially since it worked so nicely in Xen 3.0.x (and > is very simple to do with KVM).Seems reasonable to me also.> What would be ideal (and is also something that never worked in Xen) would > be to have eth0 be the management NIC, and then bond together eth3 > through eth6 as bond0 and then us that as the bridge in the dom0 that all > the domUs would use. But, I gave up on that after a few days as I could > either have traffic to the dom0 or to the domUs, but not both.Yeah, I''ve read many complaints about bond devices in xen. I would be very surprised if 3.2 doesn''t even use the ''netdev'' var. In that case, your wrapper script could be: /etc/xen/scripts/network-bridge netdev=eth0 /etc/xen/scripts/network-nat netdev=eth1 which would give your domus access to the internet, but private addresses. Also, I wonder if virsh still sets up virbr0 on 3.2, which provides private networking with no access to the internet. (The bridge still has an ip, but it''s private.) Oh well, hopefully someone more versed in 3.2 will chime in here. Good luck. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
hi Jim, jim burns schrieb:> I''ve read this complaint before about xen 3.2 removing those parms, and agree > that they are convenient. I''m a little confused, tho'' since Fedora 8/xenwhere did you read it? I''ve just searched in google, Wikis and Mailinglists for any explanations, but without success.> Oh well, hopefully someone more versed in 3.2 will chime in here. Good luck.I hope it really too, cause without understand how the "new" layout works, nobody would do an upgrade, i mean. cu denny -- Stoppt den Überwachungswahn - Stoppt den Schäuble Katalog: http://www.nopsis.de _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Saturday June 07 2008 08:46:49 am Denny Schierz wrote:> > I''ve read this complaint before about xen 3.2 removing those parms, and > > agree that they are convenient. I''m a little confused, tho'' since Fedora > > 8/xen > > where did you read it? I''ve just searched in google, Wikis and > Mailinglists for any explanations, but without success.In this list - user experiences. Try searching the list for this year on terms like netdev or vifnum. You''ll get a lot of hits, but you might come up with something, On the other hand, I saw a post just yesterday where someone said he was using vifnum in 3.2. Makes me wonder if this varies from distro to distro. _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users
On Saturday June 07 2008 09:28:47 am I wrote:> On Saturday June 07 2008 08:46:49 am Denny Schierz wrote: > > > I''ve read this complaint before about xen 3.2 removing those parms, and > > > agree that they are convenient. I''m a little confused, tho'' since > > > Fedora 8/xen > > > > where did you read it? I''ve just searched in google, Wikis and > > Mailinglists for any explanations, but without success. > > In this list - user experiences. Try searching the list for this year on > terms like netdev or vifnum. You''ll get a lot of hits, but you might come > up with something, On the other hand, I saw a post just yesterday where > someone said he was using vifnum in 3.2. Makes me wonder if this varies > from distro to distro.Hmm, I''ve just installed xen 3.2 in my F9 pv domu, and /etc/xen/scripts/network-bridge is clearly using ''bridge'' and ''netdev'': # Usage: # # network-bridge (start|stop|status) {VAR=VAL}* # # Vars: # # bridge The bridge to use (default ${netdev}). # netdev The interface to add to the bridge (default gateway device). # antispoof Whether to use iptables to prevent spoofing (default no). # # Internal Vars: # pdev="p${netdev}" # tdev=tmpbridge # # start: # Creates the bridge as tdev # Copies the IP and MAC addresses from pdev to bridge # Renames netdev to be pdev # Renames tdev to bridge # Enslaves pdev to bridge # # stop: # Removes pdev from the bridge # Transfers addresses, routes from bridge to pdev # Renames bridge to tdev # Renames pdev to netdev # Deletes tdev # # status: # Print addresses, interfaces, routes I suppose I won''t have to wait for an F9 or F10 dom0 support to play with, since the upcoming openSuSE 11 will have 3.2. What does your script say, and on what distro? _______________________________________________ Xen-users mailing list Xen-users@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users