Open Stack

Also, Phil Hopkins just pointed out the Icehouse Neutron release notes to
me.

https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReleaseNotes/Icehouse#OpenStack_Network_Service_.28Neutron.29

In particular...

"The OVS plugin and Linux Bridge plugin are deprecated and should not be
used for deployments. The ML2 plugin combines OVS and Linux Bridge support
into one plugin. A migration script has been provided for Havana
deployments looking to convert to ML2. The migration does not have a
rollback capability, so it is recommended the migration be tested on a copy
of the database prior to running on a live system."


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:58 AM, Matt Kassawara <mkassawara at gmail.com>wrote:

> Those who responded to the earlier thread want to keep only ML2. Before
> deciding what to do with OVS, we need to consider the following questions:
>
> 1) Should any new installations use OVS instead of ML2?
> 2) Will Juno deprecate OVS?
>
> I don't mind updating the OVS sections and testing them on at least a
> handful of the most common distributions, but the process will take a
> significant amount of time and effort perhaps better spent working on more
> relevant parts of the installation guide.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Anne Gentle <anne at openstack.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 12:51 AM, Tom Fifield <tom at openstack.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/04/14 13:40, Steve Gordon wrote:
>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>
>>>>> Poll here:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.polljunkie.com/poll/jasatw/what-should-we-do-with-ovs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have two plugins in the neutron section of the install guide: ML2
>>>>> and
>>>>> OpenvSwitch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Of these, ML2 has been extensively reworked and tested (it's pretty).
>>>>> OpenVswitch "may" also work, but has been deprecated for future use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please vote on the poll as to what should happen to the OpenvSwitch
>>>>> section :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tom
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Where is the leave it how it is option (which I thought we had already
>>>> reached agreement on)?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sorry - option added.
>>>
>>> Personally, I think leaving something in that doesn't meet the quality
>>> bar we set by testing everything else in the guide is a bad idea.
>>> Especially when there is a good alternative, that significant time has been
>>> put into, and is likely a better option for users long-term.
>>>
>>>
>> This feels awfully late for a decision.
>>
>> The previous thread is here from April 3 though:
>>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/2014-April/004204.html
>>
>> I sense the decision then was to ensure ML2 works, and OVS clean up could
>> occur later. Matt, do you recall any other discussions?
>>
>> Anne
>>
>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Openstack-docs mailing list
>>> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Openstack-docs mailing list
>> Openstack-docs at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20140417/3fca7cce/attachment.html>