Open Stack

Brandon,

It's allowed right now just per API. It's up to a backend to decide the
status of a node in case some monitors find it dead.

Thanks,
Eugene.



On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Brandon Logan
<brandon.logan at rackspace.com>wrote:

>  I have concerns about multiple health monitors on the same pool.  Is
> this always going to be the same type of health monitor?  There’s also
> ambiguity in the case where one health monitor fails and another doesn’t.
>  Is it an AND or OR that determines whether the member is down or not?
>
>  Thanks,
> Brandon Logan
>
>   From: Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com>
> Reply-To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM
> To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Updated Object Model?
>
>   Vijay,
>
>  Pools-monitors are still many to many, if it's not so on the picture -
> we'll fix that.
> I brought this up as an example of how we dealt with m:n via API.
>
>  Thanks,
> Eugene.
>
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 6:43 PM, Vijay Venkatachalam <
> Vijay.Venkatachalam at citrix.com> wrote:
>
>>  Thanks for the clarification. Eugene.
>>
>>
>>
>> A tangential point since you brought healthmon and pool.
>>
>>
>>
>> There will be an additional entity called ‘PoolMonitorAssociation’ which
>> results in a many to many relationship between pool and monitors. Right?
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, the model is indicating a pool can have only one monitor. So a minor
>> correction is required to indicate the many to many relationship via
>> PoolMonitorAssociation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Vijay V.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikanorov at mirantis.com]
>> *Sent:* Thursday, May 15, 2014 7:36 PM
>>
>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Updated Object Model?
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Vijay,
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> When you say API is not available, it means this should not be considered
>> like a resource/entity. Correct?
>>
>>
>>
>> But then, there would be API like a bind API, that accepts
>> loadbalancer_id & listener_id,  which creates this object.
>>
>> And also, there would be an API that will be used to list the listeners
>> of a LoadBalancer.
>>
>>
>>
>> Right?
>>
>>  Right, that's the same as health monitors and pools work right now:
>> there are separate REST action to associate healthmon to a pool
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Eugene.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140516/3ff985ad/attachment.html>