Open Stack

Yeah that’s a good point.  Thanks!

From: Eugene Nikanorov <enikanorov at mirantis.com<mailto:enikanorov at mirantis.com>>
Reply-To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 10:38 PM
To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Updated Object Model?

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<mailto: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<mailto:enikanorov at mirantis.com>>
Reply-To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Thursday, May 15, 2014 at 9:55 AM
To: "openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20140516/171f4cd9/attachment.html>