Description of problem: When setupNetworks refers to a non-existing bond, setupNetworks will fail validating bond options. How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1.Send a setupNetworks command that refers to a non existing bond. Actual results: Error parsing bonding options 'mode=4' Expected results: operation should have finished without errors. Additional info: This is due to the fact that we check for existing bond device options by checking if sysfs exposes them. Since the requested bond does not exist when checking, we fail. Cloning from a engine side bug. That side taken care of by the second link in tracker. +++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #649239 +++ Description of problem: When adding new bond, the backend relies on the existing bonds. This causes few problems: 1. limit the number of bonds to 5 (which created by default by vdsm). 2. if vdsm won't create bond[0-4] by default, the backend will pass Null bonds to the UI and the user won't be able to create bond at all. The solution would be to add one more bond every time user call to create bond. if vdsm return bond0 exists, backend will create bond1 and so on. note: This is not RFE because of an open vdsm bug 647155 which will cause backend to send Null to UI when creating new bond. --- Additional comment from Avi Tal on 2010-12-26 08:52:34 EST --- As for an RFE solution, backend should support adding more Bonds --- Additional comment from Lior Vernia on 2013-02-28 10:45:47 EST --- Still depends on a fix on VDSM side.
For rhev-3.2 this is only a CodeChange, as bond777 cannot be requested from Engine. One may verify the change with vdsClient addNetwork bridge=bla bond=bond777 nics=eth4
Verified on vdsm-4.10.2-12.0.el6ev.x86_64
This bug is currently attached to errata RHBA-2012:14332. If this change is not to be documented in the text for this errata please either remove it from the errata, set the requires_doc_text flag to minus (-), or leave a "Doc Text" value of "--no tech note required" if you do not have permission to alter the flag. Otherwise to aid in the development of relevant and accurate release documentation, please fill out the "Doc Text" field above with these four (4) pieces of information: * Cause: What actions or circumstances cause this bug to present. * Consequence: What happens when the bug presents. * Fix: What was done to fix the bug. * Result: What now happens when the actions or circumstances above occur. (NB: this is not the same as 'the bug doesn't present anymore') Once filled out, please set the "Doc Type" field to the appropriate value for the type of change made and submit your edits to the bug. For further details on the Cause, Consequence, Fix, Result format please refer to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#cf_release_notes Thanks in advance.
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/RHSA-2013-0886.html