Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/03/2016 10:11:57 AM: > From: Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org>, ovs-dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > Date: 08/03/2016 10:12 AM > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Let's talk the NB DB IDL Part I - things > we've see scaling the networking-ovn to NB DB connection > > On Wed, Aug 3, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Ryan Moats <rmo...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/03/2016 12:27:48 AM: > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > Cc: ovs-dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > Date: 08/03/2016 12:28 AM > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Let's talk the NB DB IDL Part I - things > > we've see scaling the networking-ovn to NB DB connection > > > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:06:47AM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 11:52:23 PM: > > > > > > > From: Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> > > > > To: Ryan Moats/Omaha/IBM@IBMUS > > > > Cc: ovs-dev <dev@openvswitch.org> > > > > Date: 08/02/2016 11:52 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ovs-dev] Let's talk the NB DB IDL Part I - things > > > > we've see scaling the networking-ovn to NB DB connection > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 11:45:07PM -0500, Ryan Moats wrote: > > > > > "dev" <dev-boun...@openvswitch.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 10:56:07 > PM: > > > > > > Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote on 08/02/2016 10:14:46 PM: > > > > > > > Presumably this means that networking-ovn is calling "verify" > on > > > the > > > > > > > column in question. Probably, networking-ovn should use the > > > partial > > > > > map > > > > > > > update functionality introduced in commit f199df26e8e28 > "ovsdb-idl: > > > Add > > > > > > > partial map updates functionality." I don't know whether it's > in > > > the > > > > > > > Python IDL yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > Indeed they are and thanks for the pointer to the commit - I'll > dig > > > > > > into it tomorrow and see if that code is reflected in the Python > > > > > > IDL via that or another commit. If it is, great. If not, there > > > > > > will likely also be a patch adding it so that we can move along. > > > > > > > > > > Hmm, maybe I'm misreading something, but I don't thing that's going > > > > > to work without some additional modifications - the partial map > commit > > > > > currently codes for columns that have a particular value type > defined > > > > > by the schema. The problem we are seeing is with the ports and > acls > > > > > columns of the logical switch table, which are lists of strong > > > > > references. Since they don't have a defined value, the generated > IDL > > > > > code doesn't provide hooks for using partial map operations and we > > > default > > > > > back to update/verify with the given above results. > > > > > > > > > > Now, I think this an oversight, because I can argue that since > these > > > > > are strong references, I should be able to use partial maps to > update > > > > > them as keys with a null value. Does this make sense or am I > breaking > > > > > something if I look at going this route? > > > > > > > > If they're implemented as partial map operations only, then we should > > > > extend them to support partial set operations too--the same > principles > > > > apply. > > > > > > I'm not sure I parsed this correctly, but I think we are saying the > same > > > thing: change the IDL for columns that contain sets of strong > references > > > from using update/verify to using mutate for partial set operations (I > > > realized after hitting the send button that I should have said partial > > > sets instead of partial maps...) > > > > Yes, I think we're saying the same thing. > >
> Cool, I'll see how far I can get (not sure where my previous message saying > this went...) > > From the perspective of the branch point, we'd really like to see the > following make the 2.6 release to allow for easier integration with > upstream > OpenStack testing: > > - partial sets for the C IDL > - partial maps for the Python IDL > - partial sets for the Python IDL > > In fact, I'd sorta like to see them all backported to 2.5, but I doubt > that's > possible. > > (...off to craft patch sets...) > > but based on: > > http://openvswitch.org/pipermail/dev/2016-July/076855.html > > it seems too late to try to get new things like this in for 2.6. I realize that I'm asking for an exception - at the time I wrote that we didn't realize how much of an issue using verify/update semantics was going to be when scaling (mea culpa). If the exception isn't granted, so be it - we'll carry it locally until the 2.6.90 branch opens... _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
