<div dir="ltr">Folks, <div><br></div><div>Sorry, I forgot to 'reply all'. </div><div>Wiki page (<a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/LBaaS/PluginDrivers" target="_blank" style="font-size:13px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/LBaaS/PluginDrivers</a> ) contains some possible ways of interacting between various components of lbaas.</div>
<div style>Youcef, your model #5 is also possible, feel free to add it to the page. (Btw, I used <a href="http://websequencediagrams.com">websequencediagrams.com</a> to make pictures) <br></div><div style><br></div><div style>
As for asynchronocity: I implied that 1st, 2nd, and 4th approach would use rpc 'cast' method, which is non-blocking. Agent then will call some plugin-side callback to acknowledge status of the object being CRUDed. </div>
<div style>As for rest-proxy case (I hope I've chosen the right name for what Radware wants) - I think that it could be implemented just in the same way. If not then it would be responsibility of the driver or agent to provide that async behavior.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>In fact, I've been thinking a while about async drivers and came to conclusion that it's an overhead, because once we start talking to some in-quantum component via rpc it becomes in-quantum agent. </div>
<div style>That has 2 consequences:</div><div style>1) if you have such async driver, you should not use separate agent (or it would be plugin->(rpc) driver->(rpc) agent, which is an overhead)</div><div style>2) you can't use main advantage of agents: load distribution across different hosts.</div>
<div style>So currently I think we could be ok with 'sync' drivers until they do not wait for corresponding agent.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Thanks,</div><div style>Eugene.</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Eugene Nikanorov</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:enikanorov@mirantis.com">enikanorov@mirantis.com</a>></span><br>Date: Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 4:15 PM<br>
Subject: Re: [Quantum][LBaaS] LBaaS development plan for Havana<br>To: Youcef Laribi <<a href="mailto:Youcef.Laribi@eu.citrix.com">Youcef.Laribi@eu.citrix.com</a>><br><br><br><div dir="ltr">Hi Youcef,<div><br></div>
<div>I've added a page with workflows for cases that were described in the plan: <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/LBaaS/PluginDrivers" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/LBaaS/PluginDrivers</a></div>
<div><br></div><div>Regarding the box descriptions - I was hoping their meaning didn't change :) It's only that we now may have drivers at both plugin and agent side.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div>
<div>Eugene.</div><div><br></div></div><div class=""><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:22 PM, Youcef Laribi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Youcef.Laribi@eu.citrix.com" target="_blank">Youcef.Laribi@eu.citrix.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="">
<span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Thanks Eugene. Could you for clarity add to the document a brief description of what each box in the diagram does, and what is the workflow of a user request for each of the 4 drivers you have in the picture?<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Thanks<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">Youcef<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class=""><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p>
<p class=""><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Tahoma,sans-serif"> Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:<a href="mailto:enikanorov@mirantis.com" target="_blank">enikanorov@mirantis.com</a>] <br>
</span></p><div><b>Sent:</b> Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:24 AM<br><b>To:</b> Sumit Naiksatam<br></div><b>Cc:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List; Ilya Shakhat; Avishay Balderman; Mark McClain; Youcef Laribi; Salvatore Orlando<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [Quantum][LBaaS] LBaaS development plan for Havana<u></u><u></u><p></p><div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="">Sumit,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="">
No, thanks for reminding! need to think how it will fit into the plan (at which step it would be easier to implement)<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">Youcef, drivers are only vendor-specific in my diagram (both plugin-side drivers or agent-side drivers).<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="">Device Inventory or scehduling don't belong to drivers, but drivers could rely on them.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">
Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="">Eugene.<u></u><u></u></p></div></div><div><p class="" style="margin-bottom:12pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="">On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Sumit Naiksatam <<a href="mailto:sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com" target="_blank">sumitnaiksatam@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="">Hi Eugene,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">Thanks. During the summit we discussed the notion of a logical loadbalancer/device which we later moved to calling a loadbalancer service instance (one or more tenant, as desired). Is this capture somewhere in the scheme of things?<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class=""><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p></div><div><p class=""><span><span style="color:rgb(136,136,136)">~Sumit.</span></span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="" style="margin-bottom:12pt">
<u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="">On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Eugene Nikanorov <<a href="mailto:enikanorov@mirantis.com" target="_blank">enikanorov@mirantis.com</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="">
Hi folks,<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">I've prepared a list of a major action items needed for futher development of multivendor and production-ready LBaaS: <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/LBaaS/HavanaPlan" target="_blank">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Quantum/LBaaS/HavanaPlan</a><u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">I'd be glad to here your feedback about it. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="">I think we need to start discussing these items in more details.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">Aside from this list I imply that vendors will create their drivers choosing whatever architecture is reasonable for their solution, while quantum provides convenient way of integrating them.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class="">Also, as you can see, some of action items (like service insertion or device inventory) have scope beyond LBaaS so I expect folks who are interested in other services to participate in corresponding discussions.<u></u><u></u></p>
</div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="">Eugene.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div>
</div></div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div><p class=""><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></div><br></div></div>