Open Stack

Hi John,

Sorry for the late response. I was completely tied up with something.

I agree with your comments on the use cases.

>Once there are the use cases, given all the Config vs API debates, I
>would look at the pure data flow, in a Config/API agnostic way.
>Agreeing the info needed from the user, then in the VIF driver, then
>in between, etc. We should be able to agree on that, before returning
>to the host aggregates API vs something new API vs more config debate.

I have seen your comments with Irenab’s nova-spec. I will try to reply as
well. And let’s go over the use cases outlined in that spec in tomorrow’s
IRC meeting.

Thanks,
Robert



On 4/10/14, 4:40 AM, "John Garbutt" <john at johngarbutt.com> wrote:

>Apologies, that came out all wrong...
>
>On 10 April 2014 09:28, John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com> wrote:
>> I think writing this up as a nova-spec is going to make this process
>> much easier:
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints#Nova
>>
>> It will save you having to re-write your document once you want to
>> submit a blueprint, and we can all see each others comments in gerrit,
>> and more clearly see how things change and evolve. The way the
>> template in nova-spec works, it should also help you with structuring
>> your argument.
>
>Thats just want I would find easier, its just a suggestion.
>
>> Please don't design assuming a single vendor solution, that is sure to
>> get rejected (at least my me) at the blueprint review stage. You might
>> want a different vendor in each AZ to isolate you from failures due to
>> vendor bugs, if you are digging for a use case.
>
>I guess thats a tenant use case, I got confused reading through those.
>
>> I still can't see a clear description of the "tenant" use cases, I
>> still think thats the key to getting agreement here, and getting
>> useful feedback at the summit. Not sure I understand the tables, they
>> seem a bit confusing/distracting.
>
>Sorry, forgot to mention, you are making good progress here. But,
>given the loop we are going around here, I think agreeing the "ideal"
>use cases, then looking at the detail, and looping back to see if
>everything "works" is probably the right approach. Other ideas
>welcome!
>
>Once there are the use cases, given all the Config vs API debates, I
>would look at the pure data flow, in a Config/API agnostic way.
>Agreeing the info needed from the user, then in the VIF driver, then
>in between, etc. We should be able to agree on that, before returning
>to the host aggregates API vs something new API vs more config debate.
>Right it doesn't seem to be clear what is required, so its hard to
>know what the best approach is, compared to other features we already
>have in Nova.
>
>At the moment I am struggling to see the whole picture, getting the
>general idea clear before the summit would be awesome, so we can
>discuss how to stage the implementation, deal with backwards
>compatibility, etc.
>
>Thanks,
>John
>
>> On 10 April 2014 09:14, yongli he <yongli.he at intel.com> wrote:
>>> 于 2014年04月10日 15:59, Irena Berezovsky 写道:
>>>
>>> Hi Robert,
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot the inputs you posted in the doc.
>>>
>>> I have raised there few questions and added use case for High
>>>Availability.
>>>
>>> Another concern I have is regarding the assumption that there is no
>>>case to
>>> mix different vendor cards in the setup. I think that mixing Cisco and
>>>Intel
>>> or Mellanox cards does not make sense, but Intel and Mellanox cards can
>>> coexist. At least for my understanding, but I may be wrong, both Intel
>>>and
>>> Mellanox take HW VEB (HW embedded switch) approach.
>>>
>>> 1. open to mail list.
>>> 2. admin/usr won't mixing Intel/Cisco/Mellanox card...., does not mean
>>>we
>>> should disable it, or don't give a chance.
>>> 3. i raise couple of question and questioning the aggregate solution.
>>>see
>>> inline comments.
>>>
>>> 
>>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zgMaXqrCnad01-jQH7Mkmf6amlghw9RMScGL
>>>BrKslmw/edit
>>>
>>> Yongli He
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Irena
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Robert Li (baoli) [mailto:baoli at cisco.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 11:11 PM
>>> To: Irena Berezovsky; Sandhya Dasu (sadasu); Robert Kukura; He, Yongli
>>> (yongli.he at intel.com); Itzik Brown; beagles at redhat.com
>>> Subject: Re: PCI SR-IOV use cases initial doc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I updated the doc with some of my thoughts.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Robert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 3/24/14, 8:41 AM, "Irena Berezovsky" <irenab at mellanox.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have created the initial doc to capture PCI SR-IOV networking use
>>>cases:
>>>
>>> 
>>>https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zgMaXqrCnad01-jQH7Mkmf6amlghw9RMScGL
>>>BrKslmw/edit
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have updated the agenda for tomorrow meeting to discuss the use
>>>cases.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Please comment and update
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> BR,
>>>
>>> Irena
>>>
>>>