Entries in /opt/fog/.fogsettings mangled? on First-time Install

[Tom Elliott]

I’ve not been able to replicate this issue. I’m wondering if you have multiple NICs on the system receiving identical ranges and this is why you’re seeing this?

[sudburr]

Negatory on multiple NICs.

[Wayne Workman]

@sudburr Can you give us the output of ip addr show so we can see if there is anything that may be there that is causing this?

[Tom Elliott]

As a matter of chance I currently have a 7.2.1511 server (though it is my main db server) that has never had fog installed on it before. I will take a snapshot and give it a go to see if I see the same mangling type of entries as well as hopefully fix the installation on this distro.

[Wayne Workman]

@Tom-Elliott I have tested CentOS 7.2.1511 already and my .fogsettings file is perfectly fine. Of course, CentOS 7 has other issues with the latest RC at the moment.

[sudburr]

Interesting. This wasn’t a one off. I duplicated the results on both RC10 and RC11.

And of course you can see how I built the server in my tutorial posts.

I’m trying it again now with RC14v3 (svn5974).

[sudburr]

ip addr prior to installation of RC14v3

1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet6 ::1/128 scope host
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast state UP qlen 1000
    link/ether 00:15:5d:f4:0d:2e brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 172.19.244.32/24 brd 172.19.244.255 scope global dynamic eth0
       valid_lft 517660sec preferred_lft 517660sec
    inet6 fe80::215:5dff:fef4:d2e/64 scope link
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

Entries in /opt/fog/.fogsettings immediately after installation

submask='255.255.255.0'
routeraddress='172.19.244.1
172.19.244.1'
plainrouter='172.19.244.1
172.19.244.1'

[Tom Elliott]

@sudburr Guessing this still happens? (Just keeping the unsolved bugs at the forefront so we don’t lose it)

[sudburr]

I haven’t had a chance to check against the latest builds. I’ll be looking at it this week.

[sudburr]

To quote the Professor, good news everyone!

The problem is no longer a problem as of RC22.

Thank you again for all of your hard work.

[Tom Elliott]

@sudburr But nothing changed.

[Quazz]

@Tom-Elliott The IT gods are more favorable this week.

[Tom Elliott]

@Quazz Must be. Just weird it was happening first, but with no changes to how it’s operating and suddenly being fixed seems even stranger to me.

[sudburr]

< https://youtu.be/If3SXJeZzMQ >