Open Stack

Hi Brandon,

I think just one status is overloading too much onto the LB object (which
is perhaps something that a UI should do for a user, but not something an
API should be doing.)

> 1) If an entity exists without a link to a load balancer it is purely
> just a database entry, so it would always be ACTIVE, but not really
> active in a technical sense.

Depends on the driver.  I don¹t think this is a decision for lbaas proper.


> 2) If some of these entities become shareable then how does the status
> reflect that the entity failed to create on one load balancer but was
> successfully created on another.  That logic could get overly complex.

That¹s a status on the join link, not the object, and I could argue
multiple ways in which that should be one way or another based on the
backend, which to me, again implies driver question (backend could queue
for later, or error immediately, or let things run degraded, orŠ)

Thanks,
Doug




On 6/24/14, 11:23 AM, "Brandon Logan" <brandon.logan at RACKSPACE.COM> wrote:

>I think we missed this discussion at the meet-up but I'd like to bring
>it up here.  To me having a status on all entities doesn't make much
>sense, and justing having a status on a load balancer (which would be a
>provisioning status) and a status on a member (which would be an
>operational status) are what makes sense because:
>
>1) If an entity exists without a link to a load balancer it is purely
>just a database entry, so it would always be ACTIVE, but not really
>active in a technical sense.
>
>2) If some of these entities become shareable then how does the status
>reflect that the entity failed to create on one load balancer but was
>successfully created on another.  That logic could get overly complex.
>
>I think the best thing to do is to have the load balancer status reflect
>the provisioning status of all of its children.  So if a health monitor
>is updated then the load balancer that health monitor is linked to would
>have its status changed to PENDING_UPDATE.  Conversely, if a load
>balancer or any entities linked to it are changed and the load
>balancer's status is in a non-ACTIVE state then that update should not
>be allowed.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Thanks,
>Brandon
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>OpenStack-dev mailing list
>OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev