Hide Forgot
Description of problem: In RHOS4, we could give a list of storage nodes to the packstack configuration option CONFIG_SWIFT_STORAGE_HOSTS. In RHOS5, the CONFIG_SWIFT_STORAGES option does not work in the same way. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): packstack Icehouse 2014.1.1dev1220 How reproducible: Easy to reproduce Steps to Reproduce: 1. Make 2 nodes to install via packstack (192.168.0.1,192.168.0.2) 2. Set CONFIG_SWIFT_STORAGES=192.168.0.1,192.168.0.2 in the answer-file 3. Install via packstack Actual results: swift services and loopback device on 192.168.0.1 no swift services or loopback on 192.168.0.2 Expected results: swift services and loopback on all configured nodes. Additional info: Looking at packstack/plugins/swift_600.py this looks like it could be expected behavior. Does this mean this type of setup via packstack is no longer an option?
From RHOS-5+/RDO Icehouse it is no longer possible to install multi-host Swift. So this is not a bug. But be should add a validator on parameter CONFIG_SWIFT_STORAGES, which will fail packstack if invalid values (such as IP addresses) are passed. Valid values are paths which should Swift use as storages.
Just a comment for clarification, based on my reading of the comments so far. * The goal of this bug report is not to get packstack installing multi-host Swift. That is not supported and that's why above it is referred to as not a bug". The status of this bug report is still "new" and "won't fix" for another reason. * The bug is that packstack should have printed an error that an IP cannot be set in CONFIG_SWIFT_STORAGES. The code already looks for IP:device pattern, the problem is that it just silently drops the IP. If I am misreading the comments to come to the above two conclusions incorrectly, then please clarify. Thanks. --John
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2014-1324.html