[ovs-dev] [PATCH 4/4] docs: Add README.OSX.md

[Dave Tucker]

On 24 Jan 2015, at 17:09, Ben Pfaff wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 02:23:52PM +0000, Dave Tucker wrote:
>> On 23 Jan 2015, at 22:52, Ben Pfaff wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 01:17:38AM +0000, Dave Tucker wrote:
>>>> +Usage
>>>> +-----
>>>> +
>>>> +> NOTE: Currently the userspace utilities will *only* work with 
>>>> the
>>>> equivalent OVS version
>>>
>>> Why?
>>
>> This could be a bug - I'm not sure. I have OVS 2.3.0 running on a 
>> test Linux
>> system.
>> When I tried to talk to it using a freshly compiled OSX binary I got 
>> the
>> following error:
>>
>> 2015-01-24T13:57:19Z|00001|ovsdb_idl|WARN|syntax "{"details":"error 
>> is not a
>> valid column name","error":"syntax
>> error","syntax":"[\"error\",\"name\",\"options\",\"type\"]"}": syntax 
>> error:
>> <table-updates> includes unknown table "syntax"
>> ovs-vsctl: transaction error: {"details":"transaction causes
>> \"Open_vSwitch\" table to contain 2 rows, greater than the 
>> schema-defined
>> limit of 1 row(s)","error":"constraint violation"}
>
> This *is* a strange error.  There are indeed some small
> incompatibilities between versions, but they do not normally cause 
> such
> problems.  Do I understand correctly that you're using a schema from
> 2.3.0 on the server and ovs-vsctl from tip of master as the client?  
> If
> so, then I'll investigate; really there should be no significant
> difference between these two versions.
>
> I'd rather fix the problem than document it.

Yes.
Server = OVS 2.3.0
Client = OSX from tip

>>>> +Assuming you have an Open vSwitch instance listening on 
>>>> `ptcp:6640`,
>>>> you can interact with it as follows:
>>>> +
>>>> +    ovs-vsctl --db=tcp:192.168.59.103:6640 show
>>>> +    ovs-vsctl --db=tcp:192.168.59.103:6640 add-br br0
>>>> +    ovs-vsctl --db=tcp:192.168.59.103:6640 set-manager br0 
>>>> ptcp:6653
>>>
>>> It's unusual to have to specify --db, can't the defaults be set up 
>>> to
>>> work properly?
>>
>> My use case was primarily talking to remote systems from my mac 
>> rather than
>> running OVS locally...
>> The port is not complete in that respect. Although I'd love to work 
>> on this
>> in the future.
>
> OK, I understand your use case now, but that that is the intended use
> case is not obvious to me from the documentation.  Would you mind 
> adding
> some text to describe that?

Of course. I'll make this more clear in v2.