In the FS I have proposed we use the 'persistent' flag with the API's. I have added this item under 'Open Issues' for now. Will update the FS based on the discussion in this list.
Since a network offering is used by an admin to define the feature set for guest networks, now I do think it makes more sense to have the flag in the network offering. All the default network offerings can have this feature disabled. To create a new persistent network a user can use a network offering provided by the admin. And to make an existing network persistent, user can update the network offering. Comments? Thank you, Likitha > -----Original Message----- > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 12:35 PM > To: CloudStack DeveloperList > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > > We had a discussion on moving the 'persistent' flag to the network offering? > > On 1/7/13 3:38 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.she...@citrix.com> wrote: > > >Created the first draft of the Functional spec - > >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+-+Persistent+ > >Net > >works. > >Will keep updating it based on the feedback. > > > >Thank you, > >Likitha > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com] > >> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10:26 PM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > >> > >> Chiradeep, Likitha, > >> > >> My take is that we need to support both kinds of networks (persistent > >>as well as non-persistent). Also, I don't think we can have this as a > >>zone-wide behavior because not all networks in a zone would need to > >>be persistent. > >> > >> For example, if you are deploying a multi-tier application, you might > >>only want the DB tier to be persistent. > >> > >> Regards, > >> Manan Shah > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 1/3/13 11:31 PM, "Ram Ganesh" <ram.gan...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > >> >Does it make sense to introduce the flag(persistent) as part of > >> >NetworkOffering? > >> > > >> >Thanks, > >> >RamG > >> > > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Likitha Shetty [mailto:likitha.she...@citrix.com] > >> >> Sent: 03 January 2013 18:05 > >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > >> >> > >> >> Please find my answers and queries inline. > >> >> > >> >> Thank you, > >> >> Likitha > >> >> > >> >> > -----Original Message----- > >> >> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com] > >> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:03 PM > >> >> > To: CloudStack DeveloperList > >> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > >> >> > > >> >> > So: > >> >> > 1. There needs to be both kinds of networks available > >> >> > (persistent as > >> >> well as non- > >> >> > persistent) in the same zone? > >> >> Yes > >> >> > >> >> > From an end-user perspective this is going to be confusing since > >> >> > she > >> >> has not > >> >> > been exposed to this internal state before (and generally the > >> >> > end- > >> >> user is not > >> >> > aware of the internal state of the infrastructure). > >> >> +1. Say we have a new API 'ProvisionNetwork' to provision a > >> >> +network > >> >> that has been created by the user. Since the user is not aware of > >> >> the internal state of a network it would be confusing for the user > >> >> to understand the difference b/w the 2 API's, CreateNetwork and > >> >> ProvisionNetwork. > >> >> > >> >> > Is it OK to make this behavior > >> >> > zone-wide, I.e., on every guest network? > >> >> But this would mean having all networks (in the zone which has > >> >> this behavior enabled) in an implemented state, even if a network > >> >> has no physical device or VM deployed in it. This is changing the > >> >> default CS behavior of not having resources allocated to a network > >> >> if the network doesn't require it. Is that acceptable ? > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On 12/31/12 10:19 AM, "Manan Shah" <manan.s...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > >Thanks Likitha for picking up this requirement. You have > >> >> > >correctly interpreted the requirements. > >> >> > > > >> >> > >Regards, > >> >> > >Manan Shah > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > >On 12/31/12 2:52 AM, "Likitha Shetty" > >> >> > ><likitha.she...@citrix.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > > >> >> > >>Hi, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>I would like to work on the proposed feature. > >> >> > >>Restating the requirement. Currently in CloudStack when a user > >> >> creates > >> >> > >>a network, a db entry for that network is made, a VLAN ID is > >> >> assigned > >> >> > >>and the network is created only when the first VM on that > >> >> > >>network > >> >> is > >> >> > created. > >> >> > >>With this feature CloudStack should allow users to provision > >> >> > >>the created network i.e. assign a VLAN ID and implement the > >> >> > >>network without having to deploy VM's on that network. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>Comments/Suggestions on the requirement ? > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>Thank you, > >> >> > >>Likitha > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >> >> > >>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.s...@citrix.com] > >> >> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:01 AM > >> >> > >>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> >> > >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>Hi, > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>I would like to propose a new feature for persistent networks > >> >> without > >> >> > >>running VMs. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided the > >> >> > >>requirements at the following location. Please provide > >> >> > >>feedback on > >> >> the > >> >> > requirements. > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>JIRA Ticket: > >> >> > >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-706 > >> >> > >>Requirements: > >> >> > > >> >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Persisten > >> >> >>t+N > >> >> >>et > >> >> w > >> >> > >>ork > >> >> > >>s > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >>Regards, > >> >> > >>Manan Shah > >> >> > >> > >> >> > > > >> > > >
