On 18.08.2016 17:42, Russell Bryant wrote:
On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 2:30 AM, Valentine Sinitsyn
<valentine.sinit...@gmail.com <mailto:valentine.sinit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Russell, Would HA manager also manage ovn-controller
switch over?
Yes, indirectly. The way this is typically handled is by
using a virtual
IP that moves to whatever host is currently the master
Cool, then ovn-controller does not have to be HA aware.
In my understanding, the virtual IP feature in Pacemaker (i.e.
IPaddr2) works if both active and passive nodes of the cluster are
in the same IP subnet.
For some deployments, this would mean both nodes a located on the
same physical rack. This is not actually a fault-tolerant design
(think blackout).
If I'm getting virtual IP addresses in Pacemaker correct, wouldn't
it be better to make ovn-controller HA aware? That is, have a node
switching command (akin to ovsdb-server/connect-active-ovsdb-server)
and let Pacemaker make use it?
I was not planning to have pacemaker manage ovn-controller on every host.
OK, makes sense.
If this sounds reasonable, I can take on it probably.
In general, I think having ovn-controller able to connect to more than
one database IP seems fine. I don't expect everyone to necessarily
agree on the same HA architecture.
Perhaps it's simple and good enough to add some support for multiple IP
addresses for the southbound database that ovn-controller can rotate
through on reconnect attempts?
As passive ovsdb instance doesn't accept client connections, this
wouldn't help much if the connectivity between ovn-controller and south
ovsdb master is broken. But this scenario is likely outside current HA
architecture either.
In short, yes, having support for multiple IPs in ovn-controller is
certainly a step forward in the right direction IMO.
Best,
Valentine
--
Russell Bryant
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
dev@openvswitch.org
http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
