On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Yongsheng Gong <gong...@unitedstack.com> > wrote: > > > First 'be like nova-network' is a merit for some deployments. > > I'm afraid 'merit' is a bit vague for me. Would you please elaborate? > > > > second, To allow admin to decide which network will be multihosted at > runtime will enable the neutron to continue using the current network node > (dhcp agent) mode at the same time. > > If multi-host and non- multi-host networks are permitted to co-exist > (because configuration is per-network), won't compute nodes have to be > allowed to be heterogenous (some multi-host capable, some not)? And won't > Nova then need to schedule VMs configured with multi-host networks on > compatible nodes? I don't recall mention of this issue in the blueprint or > design doc, and would appreciate pointers to where this decision was > documented. > > As with current neutron implementation, we need all the compute nodes to connect to the same set of physical networks. of course we can improve it with network aware nova-scheduler. current multi-host network patch does not change this situation. If user wants to start a Vm on multihost network, he/she can do it by specifying the multihost network. > > > > > If we force the network multihosted when the configuration > enable_multihost is true, and then administrator wants to transfer to > normal neutron way, he/she must modify the configuration item and then > restart. > > I'm afraid I don't follow - are you suggesting that configuring multi-host > globally will be harder on admins than the change under review? Switching > to non multi-host under the current proposal involves reconfiguring and > restarting of an awful lot of agents, to say nothing of the db changes. > > I mean we should give users the ability to create multhost-or-not networks in a neutron deployment at runtime. > > m. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Edgar Magana <emag...@plumgrid.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Developers, > > > > > > Let me explain my point of view on this topic and please share your > thoughts in order to merge this new feature ASAP. > > > > > > My understanding is that multi-host is nova-network HA and we are > implementing this bp > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/quantum-multihost for the > same reason. > > > So, If in neutron configuration admin enables multi-host: > > > etc/dhcp_agent.ini > > > > > > # Support multi host networks > > > # enable_multihost = False > > > > > > Why do tenants needs to be aware of this? They should just create > networks in the way they normally do and not by adding the "multihost" > extension. > > > > I was pretty confused until I looked at the nova-network HA doc [1]. > The proposed design would seem to emulate nova-network's multi-host HA > option, where it was necessary to both run nova-network on every compute > node and create a network explicitly as multi-host. I'm not sure why > nova-network was implemented in this way, since it would appear that > multi-host is basically all-or-nothing. Once nova-network services are > running on every compute node, what does it mean to create a network that > is not multi-host? > > > > So, to Edgar's question - is there a reason other than 'be like > nova-network' for requiring neutron multi-host to be configured per-network? > > > > > > m. > > > > 1: > http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-compute/admin/content/existing-ha-networking-options.html > > > > > > > I could be totally wrong and crazy, so please provide some feedback. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Edgar > > > > > > > > > From: Yongsheng Gong <gong...@unitedstack.com> > > > Date: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:58 PM > > > To: "Kyle Mestery (kmestery)" <kmest...@cisco.com>, Aaron Rosen < > aro...@nicira.com>, Armando Migliaccio <amigliac...@vmware.com>, Akihiro > MOTOKI <amot...@gmail.com>, Edgar Magana <emag...@plumgrid.com>, Maru > Newby <ma...@redhat.com>, Nachi Ueno <na...@nttmcl.com>, Salvatore > Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com>, Sumit Naiksatam < > sumit.naiksa...@bigswitch.com>, Mark McClain <mark.mccl...@dreamhost.com>, > Gary Kotton <gkot...@vmware.com>, Robert Kukura <rkuk...@redhat.com> > > > Cc: OpenStack List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > > Subject: Re: About multihost patch review > > > > > > Hi, > > > Edgar Magana has commented to say: > > > 'This is the part that for me is confusing and I will need some > clarification from the community. Do we expect to have the multi-host > feature as an extension or something that will natural work as long as the > deployment include more than one Network Node. In my opinion, Neutron > deployments with more than one Network Node by default should call DHCP > agents in all those nodes without the need to use an extension. If the > community has decided to do this by extensions, then I am fine' at > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37919/11/neutron/extensions/multihostnetwork.py > > > > > > I have commented back, what is your opinion about it? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Yong Sheng Gong > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) < > kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: > > >> Hi Yong: > > >> > > >> I'll review this and try it out today. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Kyle > > >> > > >> On Aug 15, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Yongsheng Gong <gong...@unitedstack.com> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > The multihost patch is there for a long long time, can someone help > to review? > > >> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37919/ > > >> > > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
