Another interface question

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Another interface question

Heiko Braun


Should the top level interface configuration be disabled in domain mode?
Opposed to editing the interface son the host level?


Ike
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another interface question

Brian Stansberry
A setting like this is logical in domain.xml, if the hosts in the domain
had a consistent configuration:

     <interfaces>
         <interface name="management">
             <nic name="eth0"/>
         </interface>
         <interface name="public">
            <nic name="eth1"/>
         </interface>
         <interface name="loopback">
            <loopback/>
         </interface>
         <interface name="example">
            <subnet-match value="192.168.100.0/24"/>
         </interface>
     </interfaces>

On 11/23/11 7:28 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:

>
>
> Should the top level interface configuration be disabled in domain mode?
> Opposed to editing the interface son the host level?
>
>
> Ike
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev


--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another interface question

Heiko Braun


The reason why I am asking is, that we basically cannot verify constraints across domain.xml and host.xml.

I.e. you could have

domain.xml

>   <interface name="management">
>             <nic name="eth0"/>
>         </interface>


and host.xml

>   <interface name="management">
<not>
>             <nic name="eth0"/>
</not>
>         </interface>


That's something I cannot validate in the console. But to improve the situation we could add a resolveInterface() operation to the host level. Which might be used to verify the effective configuration before it's written to disk. Otherwise things blowup upon server bootstrap.

Ike

On Nov 23, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:

> A setting like this is logical in domain.xml, if the hosts in the domain
> had a consistent configuration:
>
>     <interfaces>
>         <interface name="management">
>             <nic name="eth0"/>
>         </interface>
>         <interface name="public">
>            <nic name="eth1"/>
>         </interface>
>         <interface name="loopback">
>            <loopback/>
>         </interface>
>         <interface name="example">
>            <subnet-match value="192.168.100.0/24"/>
>         </interface>
>     </interfaces>
>
> On 11/23/11 7:28 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
>>
>>
>> Should the top level interface configuration be disabled in domain mode?
>> Opposed to editing the interface son the host level?
>>
>>
>> Ike
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>
>
> --
> Brian Stansberry
> Principal Software Engineer
> JBoss by Red Hat
> _______________________________________________
> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev


_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Another interface question

Brian Stansberry
Interface constraints are not merged; it's an override, not a merge.

On 11/24/11 1:50 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:

>
>
> The reason why I am asking is, that we basically cannot verify constraints across domain.xml and host.xml.
>
> I.e. you could have
>
> domain.xml
>
>>    <interface name="management">
>>              <nic name="eth0"/>
>>          </interface>
>
>
> and host.xml
>
>>    <interface name="management">
> <not>
>>              <nic name="eth0"/>
> </not>
>>          </interface>
>
>
> That's something I cannot validate in the console. But to improve the situation we could add a resolveInterface() operation to the host level. Which might be used to verify the effective configuration before it's written to disk. Otherwise things blowup upon server bootstrap.
>
> Ike
>
> On Nov 23, 2011, at 6:50 PM, Brian Stansberry wrote:
>
>> A setting like this is logical in domain.xml, if the hosts in the domain
>> had a consistent configuration:
>>
>>      <interfaces>
>>          <interface name="management">
>>              <nic name="eth0"/>
>>          </interface>
>>          <interface name="public">
>>             <nic name="eth1"/>
>>          </interface>
>>          <interface name="loopback">
>>             <loopback/>
>>          </interface>
>>          <interface name="example">
>>             <subnet-match value="192.168.100.0/24"/>
>>          </interface>
>>      </interfaces>
>>
>> On 11/23/11 7:28 AM, Heiko Braun wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Should the top level interface configuration be disabled in domain mode?
>>> Opposed to editing the interface son the host level?
>>>
>>>
>>> Ike
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>>
>>
>> --
>> Brian Stansberry
>> Principal Software Engineer
>> JBoss by Red Hat
>> _______________________________________________
>> jboss-as7-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev
>


--
Brian Stansberry
Principal Software Engineer
JBoss by Red Hat
_______________________________________________
jboss-as7-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-as7-dev