On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:52 PM, Han Zhou <zhou...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 07:32:53PM +0530, Numan Siddique wrote: > > > > > > > 5) Remove support from ovn-controller updating the 'Chassis.hv_cfg' > > > > column and handle the side effect in "--wait=hv" in ovn-nbctl. > > > > > > The ability to wait for hypervisors to catch up is pretty valuable. > I'm > > > not super happy about losing it. > > > > > > > I'm not either. > > > > The only compromise I could come up with was retain it, but document that > > it won't work if you run the SB DB in a read-only mode. That's how we'd > > recommend it to be done in production, so the feature would become a > > test-only feature, but then the tests wouldn't be helping ensure we only > > read from the sb db otherwise. > > > > -- > > Apart from security, I think there is one more benefit of making SB > readonly, at least for short term. It can help deploying in a large scale > environment by sharing SB connections. Assume one SB server can support 1k > HV connections, we can achieve 10k HVs by 10 slave SB servers, each > replicating all changes of SB from a master node. For this to work, we need > to make SB readonly to avoid the consensus problem, which I assume will be > solved by Raft support or etcd, but not very soon. >
That's a really great point. I hadn't considered this positive side effect. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
