On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 9:29 AM, Russell Bryant <russ...@ovn.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Dan Mihai Dumitriu <dm...@cornell.edu> > wrote: > >> I'd argue for the approach of keeping the OVSDB protocol in place, >> because the SB schema is already there, well understood, and making the >> central DB a fault tolerant cluster would have little or no impact on the >> ovs-controller implementation. It would also allow the current single OVSDB >> to continue to function while the cluster is developed. >> > Do you also mean keep ovsdb-server, or did you mean writing a server-side OVSDB-to-other-db proxy? I was thinking that if we wanted to add support for another db, doing it with a client side abstraction would be better instead of adding our own custom server-side component. -- Russell Bryant _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
