Its because someone recommended devstack be switched to linux bridge so that its easier for folks to learn openstack. but my assertion is, if all production sites will have to run ovs (or some vendor plugin) and not linux bridge, your hurting folks by making them think they are learning something useful when they are spending time learning something that won't apply when they try and go production. Its a waste of their time. Set the default to be whatever the production default is.
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Jeremy Stanley [fu...@yuggoth.org] Sent: Friday, April 17, 2015 12:35 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Neutron] Linuxbridge as the default in DevStack [was: Status of the nova-network to Neutron migration work] On 2015-04-17 11:49:23 -0700 (-0700), Kevin Benton wrote: > I definitely understand that. But what is the major complaint from > operators? I understood that quote to imply it was around > Neutron's model of self-service networking. My takeaway from Tom's message was that there was a concern about "complexity" in all forms (not just of the API but also due to the lack of maturity, documentation and debuggability of the underlying technology), and that the self-service networking model was simply one example of that. Perhaps I was reading between the lines too much because of prior threads on both the operators and developers mailing lists. Anyway, I'm sure Tom will clarify what he meant if necessary. > If the main reason the remaining Nova-net operators don't want to > use Neutron is due to the fact that they don't want to deal with > the Neutron API, swapping some implementation defaults isn't > really going to get us anywhere on that front. This is where I think the subthread has definitely wandered off topic too. Swapping implementation defaults in DevStack because it's quicker and easier to get running on the typical all-in-one/single-node setup and faster to debug problems with (particularly when you're trying to work on non-network-related bits and just need to observe the network communication between your services) doesn't seem like it should have a lot to do with the recommended default configuration for a large production deployment. One size definitely does not fit all. > It's an important distinction because it determines what > actionable items we can take (e.g. what Salvatore mentioned in his > email about defaults). Does that make sense? It makes sense in the context of the Neutron/Nova network parity topic, but not so much in the context of the DevStack default settings topic. DevStack needs a simple default that just works, and doesn't need the kitchen sink. You can turn on more complex options as you need to test them out. In some ways this has parallels to the complexity concerns the operator community has over Neutron and OVS, but I think they're still relatively distinct topics. -- Jeremy Stanley __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
