Open Stack

Hi,

Maru, the value of the alternative solution is to avoid complexity in
code.

I don't know much about how network HA is implemented/planned, so If
your second change is about network HA, you can safely ignore my
comments. It wasn't evident for me, that this is about network HA. Maybe
you could put it into the commit's comment.

Cheers
Mate

On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 10:16:54AM +0100, John Garbutt wrote:
> I am just thinking back to the discussions in San Diego, I think
> everyone agreed on L2 plugin, so thats great:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15022/
> 
> For DHCP (ignoring the nova-network style HA) you can run the DHCP
> agent on a physically separate box (or different VM), and it should
> work OK. Do correct me if that is wrong. This means we would have
> Quantum support in XCP/XenServer using OVS (it already works with
> NVP).
> 
> Now for nova-style network HA, I fear I am out of the loop on these
> plans. I am tempted to say we should only worry about that once it
> lands.
> 
> This leaves single box deployments of Quantum. I am good with two
> agents running (mate's plan). It is similar to how in XenAPI
> nova-network VLAN world we created those bridges/rules in DomU.
> Performance was not great, but it was good enough for testing needs.
> However, as Maru points out, with multiple DHCP, his direction may be
> the only way forward.
> 
> John
> 
> On 22 May 2013 20:13, Maru Newby <marun at redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On May 22, 2013, at 10:54 AM, Mate Lakat <mate.lakat at citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> I successfully tested the first patch:
> >>    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15022/
> >> and would be really good to have it approved!
> >>
> >> I think the second one:
> >>    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15023
> >> is not required. I think having one agent responsible for two
> >> openvswitch instances is not good, and that change is too specific for
> >> the All-in-one deployment scenario, which is mainly used for dev/test.
> >
> > 1. The main thing the l2 agent is doing to a local bridge is tagging the ports with local vlans to provide tenant isolation.  There is no reason a given agent can't tag ports on multiple bridges, and as the submitted patch demonstrates, the added complexity is minimal.
> >
> > 2.  The change may appear specific to an all-in-one deployment scenario, but there is a plan to support nova-style network HA for dhcp by running a dhcp agent on each compute node, and the proposed patch would support this.
> >
> > I'm not sure I see the value of the alternate solution you propose - am I missing something?
> >
> >
> > m.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> My idea, is to slightly modify devstack instead, to end up with:
> >> - Have one agent for both the dom0 and the domU openvswitch instances.
> >>  Both running in domU, using different root wrappers, and different
> >>  configurations (requires #15022 patch).
> >> - Create another XenServer network - a new ovs bridge - and use that for
> >>  connecting VMs, do not add any domU interfaces to that bridge.
> >> - Use domU's eth1's network as a "physical" network. In domU, create a
> >>  bridge, connect the eth1 to that bridge. Name this bridge br-eth1.
> >>  Specify br-eth1 in bridge_mappings for the domU agent. In dom0's agent
> >>  config, specify bridge_mappings to point to the bridge of the network
> >>  where domU's eth1 is plugged in. Call this network physnet1.
> >>
> >> I did some drawing here:
> >>
> >> https://raw.github.com/matelakat/shared/xs-q-v1/xenserver-quantum/deployment.png
> >>
> >> I am not a quantum expert, so let me know your ideas.
> >>
> >> And If anyone has some core-spare time, could you please core-review
> >> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15022/ so that we could start using Quantum
> >> with XenServer/XCP?
> >>
> >> Mate
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 11:46:36PM +0100, Maru Newby wrote:
> >>> I've finally updated the patches necessary to get the OVS plugin working on XS/XCP:
> >>>
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15022/
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/15023
> >>>
> >>> There's also a corresponding devstack patch to ensure the dom0 rootwrap is properly configured:
> >>>
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/27982/
> >>>
> >>> I've updated the config doc if anyone wants to test things out for real:
> >>>
> >>> http://wiki.openstack.org/QuantumDevstackOvsXcp
> >>>
> >>> Reviewer love appreciated - especially if you are a Xen specialist (I'm looking at you current and former Citrix employees!).   It would be great to finally see this merged into master!
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Maru
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >> --
> >> Mate Lakat
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-- 
Mate Lakat