On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/30/2015 04:42 AM, Gal Sagie wrote: > > Hi Justin, > > > > The idea was not to choose one database implementation over the other, > > but design things in such a way > > that its pluggable, so in terms of OVN, switching between > > implementations is transparent (as much as possible) > > > > I think that different setups can have different scale criteria and > > might need different DB solutions. > > > > I think the IDL library (the python and C implementations) will be > > rather easy to adjust as OVSDB have clear API > > > > So doing this work now, we can easily change and experiments with > > different DB solutions > > Ben and Justin have made a pretty good case that this is a premature > since we really haven't done much real testing to see how ovsdb-server > scales. This could potentially be a pretty big distraction and I'm not > sure it's worth it. I don't think adding this later will be > significantly more difficult than it is today if it's needed. > > If someone wants to do some experimentation in the short term, it's > certainly possible. There is an API generated from the ovsdb schema > that you could re-implement. > > It might be better time spent to think about OVN testing and how we can > do good, reproducible scale tests. Ben has done some awesome work here, > but it seems we may need to a multi-node environment since at some point > it sounds like the number of processes on a single host becomes a > problem in the simulated test env. > > +1 Thanks for taking the time to answer this one everyone, and I agree with Russell that it makes more sense to do this later down the road rather than distract things at the moment. Thanks, Kyle > -- > Russell Bryant > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > dev@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
