I'm going to mark this is invalid against nova-compute as nova-compute
does not have a relation with percona anymore (Icehouse+ I believe).
** Changed in: charm-nova-compute
Status: Triaged => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
** Changed in: charm-nova-compute
Milestone: 17.08 => None
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
percona cluster getting wrong private ip
To manage notifications about th
** Changed in: charm-nova-compute
Milestone: 17.05 => 17.08
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
percona cluster getting wrong private ip
To manage notifications about t
Based on Ryan's assessment and marking of this as 'Invalid' for juju
(ubuntu), I am marking this as 'Invalid' for "juju" project too.
** Changed in: juju
Status: New => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
ht
** Also affects: juju
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Changed in: juju (Ubuntu)
Status: Confirmed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
perco
** Changed in: charm-percona-cluster
Status: New => Fix Released
** Changed in: charm-percona-cluster
Milestone: None => 17.02
** Changed in: charm-nova-compute
Milestone: None => 17.05
** Changed in: charm-percona-cluster
Importance: Undecided => High
** Changed in: charm-per
** Changed in: percona-cluster (Juju Charms Collection)
Status: Fix Committed => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
percona cluster getting wrong private ip
** Changed in: charm-nova-compute
Importance: Undecided => High
** Changed in: charm-nova-compute
Status: New => Triaged
** Changed in: nova-compute (Juju Charms Collection)
Status: Triaged => Invalid
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs
** Changed in: nova-compute (Juju Charms Collection)
Importance: Critical => High
** Changed in: nova-compute (Juju Charms Collection)
Status: Confirmed => Triaged
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs
Reviewed: https://review.openstack.org/424911
Committed:
https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/charm-percona-cluster/commit/?id=881591871513489a67733d593cdb0721d41b5012
Submitter: Jenkins
Branch:master
commit 881591871513489a67733d593cdb0721d41b5012
Author: David Ames
Date: Tue Jan 24
** Changed in: percona-cluster (Juju Charms Collection)
Assignee: (unassigned) => James Page (james-page)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
percona cluster getting wr
In the scope of the percona-charm, we see two problems:
a) the network space binding for the cluster relation is not being used
for the local wsrep address for mysql (although the cluster relation
space binding is used to build the list of hosts participating in the
cluster). This might not actua
I appreciate the need to move charms to the network-get --primary-
address charm hook tool to support use of network spaces, but I still
feel that there might be a 'undefined behaviour' use case in this code
path.
If a user does not bind a relation or extra-binding, then what gets
returned from ne
Larry - for percona-cluster, you'll need to provide a binding for the
shared-db relation to oil as well; no need to use the access-network
configuration option (infact that prevents the use of juju network space
binding in the charm).
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member
I was able to get the percona-cluster to fetch the correct private-
address by using access-network option to specify the correct network
where I expected this private-address to be on.
Note that I also was using the access binding to specify space
associated with that subnet so not sure if both b
** Tags added: oil oil-2.0
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
percona cluster getting wrong private ip
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad
Status changed to 'Confirmed' because the bug affects multiple users.
** Changed in: juju-core (Ubuntu)
Status: New => Confirmed
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1657305
Title:
here is the comment from juju team John Meinel:
There is nothing to say that the PXE address is better than the other address
for any given *user's* deployment. If a charm isn't updated to support
network-get, even if we did make private-address stable, there would be no way
to put the applicat
According to John Meinel:
'The charms should be updated to use "network-get
--preferred-address" instead of just "unit-get private-address".
unit-get doesn't pass the information to Juju for us to know which bit
of the configuration we're supposed to be reporting.'
I would make the argument that
19 matches
Mail list logo
