TrueNAS-SCALE-22.02.2.1 and VNC after changing NIC from direct to Bridge

[jlast]

Hey Everyone, first of all thank you in advance for the help..

I am running TrueNAS-SCALE-22.02.2.1, everything seems to be working well, except for..

In order to allow my VM's (Windows) to access the storage on the Truenas host I followed this guide, the VM networking is now working as intended, I am able to RDP and ping into the guest VM and I am able to access the Truenas host storage via SMB.

However now when I attempt to use the browser VNC connection via display on the guest VM the connection just says connecting..

Attached is a screen shot of the settings for the Display device.

I did notice that the URL for noVNC has the port of 5800 not 5900 which is configured in the display device.

This behavior also happens on new VMs as well.

Thanks again!

 

[morganL]

Hey Everyone, first of all thank you in advance for the help..

I am running TrueNAS-SCALE-22.02.2.1, everything seems to be working well, except for..

In order to allow my VM's (Windows) to access the storage on the Truenas host I followed this guide, the VM networking is now working as intended, I am able to RDP and ping into the guest VM and I am able to access the Truenas host storage via SMB.

However now when I attempt to use the browser VNC connection via display on the guest VM the connection just says connecting..

Attached is a screen shot of the settings for the Display device.

I did notice that the URL for noVNC has the port of 5800 not 5900 which is configured in the display device.

This behavior also happens on new VMs as well.

Thanks again!

Can you confirm VNC was working before bridge interface added
Its probably a networking configuration issue...
You would have to document your set-up accurately and someone may be able to see the issue.
Is each VM connected to one or two networks now?

 

[jlast]

I can confirm that VNC was working before I bridged the network.

enp4s0f1 is my physical port

Before I had enp4s0f1 set statically to 10.10.0.6,I changed enp4s0f1 to 10.10.0.8 I then added the bridge and set it to 10.10.0.6.

here is an ifconfig of the current setup.

br0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 10.10.0.6 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 10.10.0.255
ether 56:0a:11:82:bd:94 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 731516 bytes 106404143 (101.4 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 173 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 68855 bytes 45658427 (43.5 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

enp4s0f1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether a0:36:9f:28:68:36 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 783385 bytes 158608541 (151.2 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 3510 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 160346 bytes 57682420 (55.0 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

kube-bridge: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet 172.16.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 broadcast 172.16.255.255
inet6 fe80::a09f:a8ff:fe93:6668 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether f6:8f:eb:62:d9:5e txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 933366 bytes 130091285 (124.0 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 1022132 bytes 230533094 (219.8 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

kube-dummy-if: flags=195<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,NOARP> mtu 1500
inet 172.17.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.255 broadcast 0.0.0.0
inet6 fe80::cc51:f3ff:fe7f:8807 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether fe:b9:5f:1f:10:11 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 52 bytes 16908 (16.5 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 scopeid 0x10<host>
loop txqueuelen 1000 (Local Loopback)
RX packets 2235788 bytes 596374251 (568.7 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 2235788 bytes 596374251 (568.7 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

veth29435db0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::826:f6ff:fe0d:4260 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether fe:03:2a:20:23:6f txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 1 bytes 42 (42.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 18 bytes 4477 (4.3 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

veth5843133a: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::6811:49ff:fecc:37ec prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 9e:b9:9c:86:c6:76 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 324720 bytes 30864785 (29.4 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 329288 bytes 29255995 (27.9 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

veth83cb075a: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::8cdb:acff:feaa:c593 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 7e:0d:48:83:2e:8e txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 52835 bytes 3656102 (3.4 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 84379 bytes 5742474 (5.4 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

veth99953cf8: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::2c0c:b2ff:fef7:2ac8 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 76:03:dc:c5:6b:05 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 555828 bytes 108641168 (103.6 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 608538 bytes 195550663 (186.4 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

vethe5368fc4: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::60d3:32ff:fe31:128f prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether 12:c3:1f:37:78:35 txqueuelen 0 (Ethernet)
RX packets 1 bytes 42 (42.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 13 bytes 1929 (1.8 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

vnet5: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
inet6 fe80::fca0:98ff:fe27:7fa prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x20<link>
ether fe:a0:98:27:07:fa txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 25387 bytes 6038808 (5.7 MiB)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 680077 bytes 138551729 (132.1 MiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0


The VM is connected to 1 network and it is fully accessible.

 

[morganL]

The VNC is typically through the admin network...AFAIK
So, you've both changed the VM access to the storage and then changed the VNC (and kept the same IP address with some network judo)
Did you remove the original interface & why?

When there are multiple changes made, its hard to work out where the problem occurred.. beyond my old networking skill set.

Has anyone else done something similar?

 

[jlast]

I did not remove the original interface