One more reason to use DVS for everything.. If I have 16 hosts and I need to disjoin from CS, I need to go to each of 16 hosts and remove the "cloud*" portgroups CS create on each local switch. I know this can be scripted :)
If its in DVS, we just remove it in one place - and that's it. > -----Original Message----- > From: Sateesh Chodapuneedi [mailto:sateesh.chodapune...@citrix.com] > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:13 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Hari Kannan > Cc: Musayev, Ilya > Subject: RE: question on Distributed Virtual Switch support > > > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > > Sent: 09 March 2013 08:56 > > To: Hari Kannan; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: Sateesh Chodapuneedi; Koushik Das; Anantha Kasetty > > Subject: RE: question on Distributed Virtual Switch support > > > > Hari > > > > I don't want to be selfish person and make that call. > > > > There are vmware best practices, the example I've given below > > considers to be common best practice. Technically, you really don't > > need to use DVS on switch0 management pgroup because it is created by > > default when esxi is installed. DVS is a template switch configuration with > port accountability (and other features). > > Typically, you use DVS to avoid the manual configuration/management of > > virtual switches within a cluster - it usually done for guest vms > > networks and usually you don't want to mix guest vm traffic with > > management network. Hence supervisor management network resides on > > separate vswitch0, which comes by default, with only hosts management > traffic. > > > > This is common best practice, but people can get very fancy with > > configs and I don't want to speak for the rest of the community. > > > > There maybe customers who only have 2NICs on their servers and it that > > case - if they use DVS, they wont be able to use CS. Also, for most > > proof of concept work of CS, people tend to use basic gear with 2 NICs > > in LAB, they won't be able to test CS if they used DVS on everything > including management net. > > > > My humble opinion, it's is certainly a needed feature in 4.2, and > > while Sateesh remembers how it's done (fresh mind) It would probably > > makes sense to add this feature sooner than later. > > > > I will leave it for someone else to make a judgement call on urgency. > > Hari/Musayev, thank you for the feedback. > I will extend the dvSwitch support to management traffic as well as storage > traffic and make it configurable so that admin can make the final choice. > > +1 for PVLAN support, I can try to make the required backend changes for > VMware resource. > What are the API calls that would work on orchestration of PVLAN networks? > Is there an FS elaborating the support? > > Regards, > Sateesh > > > > > Thanks > > Ilya > > > > Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Hi Ilya, > > > > Thanks for the feedback - so, did I understand it right that your > > point of view is that mgmt. network on DVS is not a super-critical need? > > > > Hari > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] > > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 5:01 PM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Cc: Sateesh Chodapuneedi; Koushik Das; Anantha Kasetty > > Subject: RE: question on Distributed Virtual Switch support > > > > Hari > > > > I gave a second thought to your request about having a support for > > management network and DVS. > > > > Here are the use cases, > > > > Be default the hypervisors are deployed with local vswitch0 and > > management network portgroup. > > > > In most cases, if you have more than 2 NICs, assume it's 6-8, then > > breakdown for network is usually something like, > > > > 2 NICs (bonded) for vSwitch0 > > 2 NICs (bonded) for vmotion > > 2 -4 NICs (bonded) for Guest VMs - usually this is where you insert DVS. > > 2 NICs (bonded) for storage - either local or DVS switch - if no SAN. > > > > If your hypervisor only has 2 NICs, technically this is bad design, > > but even so, you have to bind the 2 interfaces and use DVS for > > everything, from managememt to vmotion to guest vm communication. > This > > is usually LAB environemnts (at least in my case). > > > > While this is an important feature request - it will help smaller > > subset of customers who only use 2 NICs for everything. Probably > > forward looking, VmWare may decide to DVS everything at some point > > and we need this ability anyway. > > > > Regards > > Ilya > > > > "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: > > +1 .. MGMT is also part of DVS in our and other ENVs. > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > > > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:25 PM > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Cc: Sateesh Chodapuneedi; Koushik Das; Anantha Kasetty > > > Subject: Re: question on Distributed Virtual Switch support > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi Sateesh, > > > > > > > > As we increase the cluster size, I wonder not having the > > > > management > > > network on DVS might be an issue. I would strongly suggest we consider > this. > > > I also spoke to some folks who are more knowledgeable with customer > > > implementations and they also say this would be an issue. > > > > > > > > As you know, we have a separate feature being discussed - support > > > > for > > > PVLAN - so, PVLAN support via DVS is a must-have requirement.. > > > > > > +1 - yes please. >
