Moving staging to new ip space

[Faber]

Hi, as an apprentice i started to look at this easy fix issue 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5931

It needs different steps and the admins to work through ansible...maybe
it's a good candidate for something to work on the Apprentice Workday on
May 24?

By now i just attached a stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file with new stage
IPs added, as described by smooge.

Of course as the time pass, some changes are made in dns/master (right
now pdc-backend03 + pdc-backend03.stg has been added)

so i will have to update it when is needed, let me know when you want it.

giardia

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 9 May 2017 at 16:39, Faber <erfabbri(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  Hi, as an apprentice i started to look at this easy fix issue
>  https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/5931
>
>  It needs different steps and the admins to work through ansible...maybe it's
>  a good candidate for something to work on the Apprentice Workday on May 24?
>  
Hi Faber

I have created a set of files in DNS from the data you had:

master/128.5.10.in-addr.arpa
master/stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org

The 128 file will be where reverse DNS of names will go.
The stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org will be where the hostnames will go.

It still needs some cleanup and after we are done with those we can
start the transfers which would work great as a Apprentice Workday.

Thanks for the initial ideas and I look forward to some feedback.

>  By now i just attached a stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file with new
> stage IPs
>  added, as described by smooge.
>
>  Of course as the time pass, some changes are made in dns/master (right now
>  pdc-backend03 + pdc-backend03.stg has been added)
>
>  so i will have to update it when is needed, let me know when you want it.
>
>  giardia
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[Fabrizio Pasqualin]

Hi, sorry, been busy, so i'm taking a look just now to the new files in dns/master/

in stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file, i can see a list of the staging hosts with IP address
still in the 126 space, should i assign the new 128 ip space?

after that i can populate the 128.5.10.in-addr.arpa file too

i can provide a patch since i cannot push them as an apprentice

[Faber]

I'm attaching a patch for stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file

if looks fine for you i'll start to edit the 128.5.10.in-addr.arpa file

[Faber]

i think there is an issue with my patch; i'm following the original idea
to have stage ip similar to prod ip

for example: noc01.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org -> 10.5.126.2
noc01-a.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org -> 10.5.128.41 [ matches noc01 on
10.5.126.41]

btw with dhcp IPs going from 10.5.128.10 to 10.5.128.20 there will be
duplicates

@smooge is it ok to use your stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file but with
the 128 ip space instead of 126?

so we have ips moved from 10.5.126 -> 10.5.128 numbers, but not 1:1

it seems all IPs there are unique, except for fas-all  and  fas01  both
with 10.5.126.86

[Stephen John Smoogen]

Hi Faber.

Thanks for keeping this up. It should be ok to use the file even if we
do not implement this until after the freeze is over.

On 19 May 2017 at 05:22, Faber <erfabbri(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>  i think there is an issue with my patch; i'm following the
> original idea to
>  have stage ip similar to prod ip
>
>  for example: noc01.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org -> 10.5.126.2
>  noc01-a.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org -> 10.5.128.41 [ matches noc01 on
>  10.5.126.41]
>
>  btw with dhcp IPs going from 10.5.128.10 to 10.5.128.20 there will be
>  duplicates
>
>  @smooge is it ok to use your stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file but with the
>  128 ip space instead of 126?
>
>  so we have ips moved from 10.5.126 -> 10.5.128 numbers, but not 1:1
>
>  it seems all IPs there are unique, except for fas-all  and  fas01  both with
>  10.5.126.86
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[Kevin Fenzi]

On 05/19/2017 03:22 AM, Faber wrote:
>  i think there is an issue with my patch; i'm following the
> original idea
>  to have stage ip similar to prod ip
>  
>  for example: noc01.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org -> 10.5.126.2
>  noc01-a.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org -> 10.5.128.41 [ matches noc01 on
>  10.5.126.41] 
Note that we want them to have the same exact names as they do now. This
is because we have our staging env set in /etc/resolv.conf to search for
hosts in stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org first... so in staging a 'noc01'
would get the ip for 'noc01.stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org' but in
production would get 'noc01.phx2.fedoraproject.org' We do this so we can
keep a lot of the config the same and it just works.
>  
>  btw with dhcp IPs going from 10.5.128.10 to 10.5.128.20 there will be
>  duplicates
>  
>  @smooge is it ok to use your stg.phx2.fedoraproject.org file but with
>  the 128 ip space instead of 126?
>  
>  so we have ips moved from 10.5.126 -> 10.5.128 numbers, but not 1:1 
While it might be handy to make them 1:1 on IP's, I don't think it's a
requirement... so sure.

>  it seems all IPs there are unique, except for fas-all  and  fas01 
> both
>  with 10.5.126.86 
Yep. That fas-all in stg is just a pointer to the one fas server (since
we only have one there). In production it points to all 3 of the servers
we have in place.

kevin