Open Stack

Hi,
Does it make sense also to have the choice between ovs-ofctl CLI and a
direct OF1.3 connection too in the ovs-agent?

Best Regards,
Racha



On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Narasimhan, Vivekanandan <
vivekanandan.narasimhan at hp.com> wrote:

>
>
> Managing the ports and plumbing logic is today driven by L2 Agent, with
> little assistance
>
> from controller.
>
>
>
> If we plan to move that functionality to the controller,  the controller
> has to be more
>
> heavy weight (both hardware and software)  since it has to do the job of
> L2 Agent for all
>
> the compute servers in the cloud. , We need to re-verify all scale numbers
> for the controller
>
> on POC’ing of such a change.
>
>
>
> That said, replacing CLI with direct OVSDB calls in the L2 Agent is
> certainly a good direction.
>
>
>
> Today, OVS Agent invokes flow calls of OVS-Lib but has no idea (or
> processing) to follow up
>
> on success or failure of such invocations.  Nor there is certain guarantee
> that all such
>
> flow invocations would be executed by the third-process fired by OVS-Lib
> to execute CLI.
>
>
>
> When we transition to OVSDB calls which are more programmatic in nature,
> we can
>
> enhance the Flow API (OVS-Lib) to provide more fine grained errors/return
> codes (or content)
>
> and ovs-agent (and even other components) can act on such return state
> more
>
> intelligently/appropriately.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Vivek
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Armando M. [mailto:armamig at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 17, 2014 10:26 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][ML2] Modular L2 agent
> architecture
>
>
>
> just a provocative thought: If we used the ovsdb connection instead, do we
> really need an L2 agent :P?
>
>
>
> On 17 June 2014 18:38, Kyle Mestery <mestery at noironetworks.com> wrote:
>
> Another area of improvement for the agent would be to move away from
> executing CLIs for port commands and instead use OVSDB. Terry Wilson
> and I talked about this, and re-writing ovs_lib to use an OVSDB
> connection instead of the CLI methods would be a huge improvement
> here. I'm not sure if Terry was going to move forward with this, but
> I'd be in favor of this for Juno if he or someone else wants to move
> in this direction.
>
> Thanks,
> Kyle
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:24 AM, Salvatore Orlando <sorlando at nicira.com>
> wrote:
> > We've started doing this in a slightly more reasonable way for icehouse.
> > What we've done is:
> > - remove unnecessary notification from the server
> > - process all port-related events, either trigger via RPC or via monitor
> in
> > one place
> >
> > Obviously there is always a lot of room for improvement, and I agree
> > something along the lines of what Zang suggests would be more
> maintainable
> > and ensure faster event processing as well as making it easier to have
> some
> > form of reliability on event processing.
> >
> > I was considering doing something for the ovs-agent again in Juno, but
> since
> > we've moving towards a unified agent, I think any new "big" ticket should
> > address this effort.
> >
> > Salvatore
> >
> >
> > On 17 June 2014 13:31, Zang MingJie <zealot0630 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi:
> >>
> >> Awesome! Currently we are suffering lots of bugs in ovs-agent, also
> >> intent to rebuild a more stable flexible agent.
> >>
> >> Taking the experience of ovs-agent bugs, I think the concurrency
> >> problem is also a very important problem, the agent gets lots of event
> >> from different greenlets, the rpc, the ovs monitor or the main loop.
> >> I'd suggest to serialize all event to a queue, then process events in
> >> a dedicated thread. The thread check the events one by one ordered,
> >> and resolve what has been changed, then apply the corresponding
> >> changes. If there is any error occurred in the thread, discard the
> >> current processing event, do a fresh start event, which reset
> >> everything, then apply the correct settings.
> >>
> >> The threading model is so important and may prevent tons of bugs in
> >> the future development, we should describe it clearly in the
> >> architecture
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:19 AM, Mohammad Banikazemi <mb at us.ibm.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Following the discussions in the ML2 subgroup weekly meetings, I have
> >> > added
> >> > more information on the etherpad [1] describing the proposed
> >> > architecture
> >> > for modular L2 agents. I have also posted some code fragments at [2]
> >> > sketching the implementation of the proposed architecture. Please
> have a
> >> > look when you get a chance and let us know if you have any comments.
> >> >
> >> > [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/modular-l2-agent-outline
> >> > [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99187/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140617/344ede23/attachment.html>