[8.161][BUG][WONT FIX] Link aggregation configration

Hello Friends !

please check image

as wingman has done full scan if he miss this consider as a bug ,as i did search for aggregation i did not find any thing

thanks
edit :
here is message :::::
Can't use string ("0") as a HASH ref while "strict refs" in use at /wfe/asg/modules/asg_interfaces.pm line 61.

thanks

0 Astaro Beta Bot over 14 years ago

Astaro Beta Report
--------------------------------
Version: 8.161
Type: BUG
State: RESOLVED/WONT FIX
Reporter: utm_kid
Contributor: 
MantisID: 17374
Target version: 
Fixed in version: 
--------------------------------

0 kbr over 14 years ago

As a rule of thumb: If the popup start with the text

[FONT="Courier New"]Can't use ... as a HASH ref ...[/FONT]

then this is a programming error (a missing check of a return-value) that we need to fix, so you don't need to mark it as "info". Here you can (and should) use "bug" instead.

Thanks for reporting this, i'll create a Mantis ID for it.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 kbr over 14 years ago

One more thing: if you copy the text of that message into the bug-post too (ie. in addition to the screenshot), then we all can do a quick search for that errormessage to find out if someone else has already reported it.
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 utm_kid over 14 years ago in reply to kbr

As a rule of thumb: If the popup start with the text

[FONT="Courier New"]Can't use ... as a HASHREF ...[/FONT]

then this is a programming error (a missing check of a return-value) that we need to fix, so you don't need to mark it as "info". Here you can (and should) use "bug" instead.

Thanks for reporting this, i'll create a Mantis ID for it.

Yes Kai !

but i am really scare of dupe that why i mark as a info ,again before posting this i search forum and manually search also

i really don't want to create a "noise"

thanks
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 kbr over 14 years ago

There's no need to be "scared" of dupes. They don't byte you... [;)]
It's just that we don't discuss much once we've closed it as "dupe".
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 da_merlin over 14 years ago

Hi utm_kid,

do you have HA/Cluster activated? If yes, which interface do you use?

Cheers
Ulrich
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 utm_kid over 14 years ago in reply to da_merlin

Hello Ulrich ,

I am Sorry my HA is not a permanent HA !

but mostly i delete interface 3 and 4 (3 is DMZ and 4 is WIRELESS) as the other machine has only 3 interface

Now i am not getting that error its showing 4 interface but when i delete interface No 4 and went to LAG it was showing LAN,WAN,DMZ and >

i am trying to re-produce the error its syncing and taking long time

as soon as i get "some" result i will come back to u

OR
you can login to my system and and have look at system

and some time i was try to configure with VLAN and really don't know when it give me that error ,also so please give me more time

thanks
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 wingman over 14 years ago

Hello Friends !

as wingman has done full scan if he miss this consider as a bug ,as i did search for aggregation i did not find any thing

I am not having any issues with Aggregation but well spotted [;)]
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 da_merlin over 14 years ago

Hi utm_kid,

you used two systems with different number of interfaces. This is official not supported.
It might work if you only use the same amount of interfaces (In your case only eth0, eth1 and eth2).

Also HA nodes must be connected identically on each node, e.g.
eth0 LAN, eht1 WAN and eth2 HA on every node.

It will NOT work if HA interface is eth3 on Node 1 and eth1 on Node 2.

Cheers
Ulrich
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel
0 utm_kid over 14 years ago in reply to da_merlin

Hello Ulrich ,
Yes i am doing same thing but i was trying to re-produce this error

if u look at past history u will understand
i will use correct configuration later and report it again (as syncing two system are taking longer time )

thanks
Cancel
Vote Up 0 Vote Down

Sign in to reply

Verify Answer

Cancel