Open Stack

Hi folks,

That actually going in opposite direction to what flavor framework is
trying to do (and for dispatching it's doing the same as providers). REST
call dispatching should really go via the root object.

I don't quite get the issue with health monitors. If HM is incorrectly
configured prior to association with a pool - API layer should handle that.
I don't think driver implementations should be different at constraints to
HM parameters.

So I'm -1 on adding provider (or flavor) to each entity. After all, it
looks just like data denormalization which actually will affect lots of API
aspects in negative way.

Thanks,
Eugene.



On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Vijay Venkatachalam <
Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com> wrote:

>
> Yes, the point was to say "the plugin need not restrict and let driver
> decide what to do with the API".
>
> Even if the call was made to driver instantaneously, I understand, the
> driver might decide to ignore
> first and schedule later. But, if the call is present, there is scope for
> validation.
> Also, the driver might be scheduling an async-api to backend, in which
> case  deployment error
> cannot be shown to the user instantaneously.
>
> W.r.t. identifying a provider/driver, how would it be to make tenant the
> default "root" object?
> "tenantid" is already associated with each of these entities, so no
> additional pain.
> For the tenant who wants to override let him specify provider in each of
> the entities.
> If you think of this in terms of the UI, let's say if the loadbalancer
> configuration is exposed
> as a single wizard (which has loadbalancer, listener, pool, monitor
> properties) then provider
>  is chosen only once.
>
> Curious question, is flavour framework expected to address this problem?
>
> Thanks,
> Vijay V.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:dougw at a10networks.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2014 22:02
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling
> driver interface on every API request"
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> Very true.  I think that Vijay’s objection is that we are currently
> imposing a logical structure on the driver, when it should be a driver
> decision.  Certainly, it goes both ways.
>
> And I also agree that the mechanism for returning multiple errors, and the
> ability to specify whether those errors are fatal or not, individually, is
> currently weak.
>
> Doug
>
>
> On 8/11/14, 10:21 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" <SamuelB at Radware.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi Doug,
> >
> >In some implementations Driver !== Device. I think this is also true
> >for HA Proxy.
> >This might mean that there is a difference between creating a logical
> >object and when there is enough information to actually schedule/place
> >this into a device.
> >The ability to express such errors (detecting an error on a logical
> >object after it was created but when it actually get scheduled) should
> >be discussed and addressed anyway.
> >
> >-Sam.
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Doug Wiegley [mailto:dougw at a10networks.com]
> >Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:55 PM
> >To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling
> >driver interface on every API request"
> >
> >Hi all,
> >
> >> Validations such as ³timeout > delay² should be performed on the API
> >>level before it reaches the driver.
> >For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there should be
> >one provider.
> >
> >You¹re right, but I think the point of Vijay¹s example was to highlight
> >the combo error problem with populating all of the driver objects at
> >once (in short, the driver interface isn¹t well suited to that model.)
> >That his one example can be covered by API validators is irrelevant.
> >Consider a backend that does not support APP_COOKIE¹s, or
> >HTTPS_TERMINATED (but has multiple listeners) instead.  Should the
> >entire load balancer create fail, or should it offer degraded service?
> >Do all drivers have to implement a transaction rollback; wait, the
> >interface makes that very hard.  That¹s his point.  The driver is no
> >longer just glue code between interfaces; it¹s now a mini-object error
> handler.
> >
> >
> >> Having provider defined in multiple places does not make sense.
> >
> >Channeling Brandon, who can yell if I get this wrong, the point is not
> >to have a potentially different provider on each object.  It¹s to allow
> >a provider to be assigned when the first object in the tree is created,
> >so that future related objects will always get routed to the same
> provider.
> >Not knowing which provider should get all the objects is why we have to
> >wait until we see a LoadBalancer object.
> >
> >
> >All of this sort of edge case nonsense is because we (the royal we, the
> >community), wanted all load balancer objects to be ³root² objects, even
> >though only one of them is an actual root today, to support
> >many-to-many relationships among all of them, at some future date,
> >without an interface change.  If my bias is showing that I¹m not a fan
> >of adding this complexity for that, I¹m not surprised.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >doug
> >
> >
> >On 8/11/14, 7:57 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" <SamuelB at Radware.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Hi,
> >>
> >>Validations such as ³timeout > delay² should be performed on the API
> >>level before it reaches the driver.
> >>
> >>For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there should be
> >>one provider.
> >>
> >>Having provider defined in multiple places does not make sense.
> >>
> >>
> >>-San.
> >>
> >>
> >>From: Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com]
> >>
> >>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43 PM
> >>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> >>(openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org)
> >>Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling
> >>driver interface on every API request"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Hi:
> >>
> >>Continuing from last week¹s LBaaS meetingŠ
> >>
> >>Currently an entity cannot be sent to driver unless it is linked to
> >>loadbalancer because loadbalancer is the root object and driver
> >>information is only available with loadbalancer.
> >>
> >>
> >>The request to the driver is delayed because of which error
> >>propagation becomes tricky.
> >>
> >>Let¹s say a monitor was configured with timeout > delay there would be
> >>no error then.
> >>When a listener is configured there will be a monitor
> >>creation/deployment error like ³timeout configured greater than delay².
> >>
> >>Unless the error is very clearly crafted the user won¹t be able to
> >>understand the error.
> >>
> >>I am half-heartedly OK with current approach.
> >>
> >>
> >>But, I would prefer Brandon¹s Solution ­ make provider an attribute in
> >>each of the entities to get rid of this problem.
> >>
> >>
> >>What do others think?
> >>
> >>Thanks,
> >>Vijay V.
> >>
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140812/79765008/attachment.html>