Hey Darren, you daredevil you
I agree that it should be possible and I want it. My focus is with the VPC routers. They should be redundant and highly available. I like your take of creating a new provider/element though I think it is necessary for the whole system to provide this at any time. So when done I think the present implementation should be replaced altogether. regards, Daan On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > The main thing that came to mind was the limitation on VPC where only one > network can have public load balancing. I looked into it a bit, and its > because the information is passed to the system vm in such a way that a > second LB config would completely overwrite previous configs. I was able to > get around it by modifying the system vm side script to treat incoming > information as additive/differential rather than starting from scratch, > then disabling the checks in the mgmt server that block this. I wasn't > satisfied with that as a solution for master, it seemed like the Command > should be rewritten to handle multiple network haproxy configs. > > On the haproxy note, it would be nice if it could do SSL termination. Its > mainly just a matter of storing the cert and passing it along in the > Command. > On Oct 9, 2013 8:57 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Well, here's the deal. I'm doing analysis right now to completely >> revamp the management of systemvm. Basically get to a faster, more >> reliable, more transparent way of doing things with far, far, far less >> code. I'm planning on putting a thread up for discussion in about a >> week. I want to have a relatively complete picture of how I think I >> can do this in order to not scare the crap out of everyone. (Just a >> preview, this will be implemented as a "new" thing/provider, won't >> disrupt the current implementation). Then I'll be working on it for >> about the next couple months I assume. I have preemptively put in a >> talk at CCC about this too, even though I know I haven't started the >> discussions with the community. >> >> I've done VRRP orchestration of VMs in the past. I was able to do HA >> w/ VRRP. So while I don't know the specific technical issues that >> made it difficult to do HA in the current impl, I know it is possible. >> So... we'll see. >> >> I'm sure you want this fixed now and I'm not going to fix this in the >> current impl. Knowing how the current RvR code works today, I can see >> how the current implementation would make it quite difficult to do >> correctly. But yeah, I'm taking requests. Anything you don't like >> about the VRs, system VMs, etc. Let me know. You want it to make >> coffee and julienne fries, I'll see what we can do. We'll add >> raspberry pi integration :) >> >> Darren >> >> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > Ooh, do you take requests? >> > On Oct 9, 2013 7:30 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.sheph...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> I didn't read the whole thread yet, but at the end of the day it's >> sounds >> >> like an implementation issue. So I'll just naively say I'll fix that :) >> >> >> >> Darren >> >> >> >> > On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < >> >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > HA redundant virtual router >> >> >>
