Open Stack

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Maru Newby <marun at redhat.com> wrote:

>
> On Aug 26, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Yongsheng Gong <gongysh at unitedstack.com>
> wrote:
>
> > First 'be like nova-network' is a merit for some deployments.
>
> I'm afraid 'merit' is a bit vague for me.  Would you please elaborate?
>
>
> > second, To allow admin to decide which network will be multihosted at
> runtime will enable the neutron to continue using the current network node
> (dhcp agent) mode at the same time.
>
> If multi-host and non- multi-host networks are permitted to co-exist
> (because configuration is per-network), won't compute nodes have to be
> allowed to be heterogenous (some multi-host capable, some not)?  And won't
> Nova then need to schedule VMs configured with multi-host networks on
> compatible nodes?  I don't recall mention of this issue in the blueprint or
> design doc, and would appreciate pointers to where this decision was
> documented.
>
> As with current neutron implementation, we need all the compute nodes to
connect to the same set of physical networks. of course we can improve it
with network aware nova-scheduler. current multi-host network patch does
not change this situation. If user wants to start a Vm on multihost
network, he/she can do it by specifying the multihost network.

>
> >
> > If we force the network multihosted when the configuration
> enable_multihost is true, and then administrator wants to transfer to
> normal neutron way, he/she must modify the configuration item and then
> restart.
>
> I'm afraid I don't follow - are you suggesting that configuring multi-host
> globally will be harder on admins than the change under review?  Switching
> to non multi-host under the current proposal involves reconfiguring and
> restarting of an awful lot of agents, to say nothing of the db changes.
>
> I mean we should give users the ability to create multhost-or-not networks
in a neutron deployment at runtime.

>
> m.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Maru Newby <marun at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Edgar Magana <emagana at plumgrid.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Developers,
> > >
> > > Let me explain my point of view on this topic and please share your
> thoughts in order to merge this new feature ASAP.
> > >
> > > My understanding is that multi-host is nova-network HA  and we are
> implementing this bp
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/quantum-multihost for the
> same reason.
> > > So, If in neutron configuration admin enables multi-host:
> > > etc/dhcp_agent.ini
> > >
> > > # Support multi host networks
> > > # enable_multihost = False
> > >
> > > Why do tenants needs to be aware of this? They should just create
> networks in the way they normally do and not by adding the "multihost"
> extension.
> >
> > I was pretty confused until I looked at the nova-network HA doc [1].
>  The proposed design would seem to emulate nova-network's multi-host HA
> option, where it was necessary to both run nova-network on every compute
> node and create a network explicitly as multi-host.  I'm not sure why
> nova-network was implemented in this way, since it would appear that
> multi-host is basically all-or-nothing.  Once nova-network services are
> running on every compute node, what does it mean to create a network that
> is not multi-host?
> >
> > So, to Edgar's question - is there a reason other than 'be like
> nova-network' for requiring neutron multi-host to be configured per-network?
> >
> >
> > m.
> >
> > 1:
> http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-compute/admin/content/existing-ha-networking-options.html
> >
> >
> > > I could be totally wrong and crazy, so please provide some feedback.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Edgar
> > >
> > >
> > > From: Yongsheng Gong <gongysh at unitedstack.com>
> > > Date: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:58 PM
> > > To: "Kyle Mestery (kmestery)" <kmestery at cisco.com>, Aaron Rosen <
> arosen at nicira.com>, Armando Migliaccio <amigliaccio at vmware.com>, Akihiro
> MOTOKI <amotoki at gmail.com>, Edgar Magana <emagana at plumgrid.com>, Maru
> Newby <marun at redhat.com>, Nachi Ueno <nachi at nttmcl.com>, Salvatore
> Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>, Sumit Naiksatam <
> sumit.naiksatam at bigswitch.com>, Mark McClain <mark.mcclain at dreamhost.com>,
> Gary Kotton <gkotton at vmware.com>, Robert Kukura <rkukura at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: OpenStack List <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> > > Subject: Re: About multihost patch review
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Edgar Magana has commented to say:
> > > 'This is the part that for me is confusing and I will need some
> clarification from the community. Do we expect to have the multi-host
> feature as an extension or something that will natural work as long as the
> deployment include more than one Network Node. In my opinion, Neutron
> deployments with more than one Network Node by default should call DHCP
> agents in all those nodes without the need to use an extension. If the
> community has decided to do this by extensions, then I am fine' at
> > >
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37919/11/neutron/extensions/multihostnetwork.py
> > >
> > > I have commented back, what is your opinion about it?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Yong Sheng Gong
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) <
> kmestery at cisco.com> wrote:
> > >> Hi Yong:
> > >>
> > >> I'll review this and try it out today.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Kyle
> > >>
> > >> On Aug 15, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Yongsheng Gong <gongysh at unitedstack.com>
> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > The multihost patch is there for a long long time, can someone help
> to review?
> > >> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37919/
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130828/29cc6c3d/attachment.html>