I uploaded the Test Plan to https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/2.2+Load+Balancing+on+all+Tiers . Kindly let me know if there are any review comments,
Thank you, Chandan. -----Original Message----- From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2013 12:14 PM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: Alex Huang; cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org; Chiradeep Vittal Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] "Internal Load Balancing between VPC tiers" On 5/1/13 11:43 AM, "Chandan Purushothama" <chandan.purushoth...@citrix.com> wrote: >Hello Alena, > >I have the following questions pertaining to the feature [Ref: >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Internal+Load+Ba >lan >cing+between+VPC+tiers] > >1. Do we support Multiple Application Tiers with InternalLb Service? We do. >2. Do we support Network Tier Upgrade from a network offering with >InternalLb Service to another network offering that supports VPC VR as >LB provider? There is no separate service for the internal LB. It is the same LB service defined in the networkOffering, just with the capability lbSchemes=internal. In this release the upgrade from offering with lbSchemes=Internal to lbSchemes=Public (and vice versa) is not gonna be supported. -Alena. > >Thank you, >Chandan. > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com] >Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 9:07 AM >To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org >Cc: Alex Huang; cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org; Chiradeep Vittal >Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] "Internal Load Balancing between VPC tiers" > >Marcus is right. The LB VM resides just on one tier (App in my FS >example). To manage the access from Web Tier to the App tier, Network >ACLs will be used. > >-Alena. > >On 3/25/13 7:55 PM, "Marcus Sorensen" <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I assume, and it seems this way from the spec, that the load balancer >>VM just lives in the same network as the VMS you want to balance and >>redirects traffic to them. It has a link local nic plus 1 nic. >> >>That's why I was thinking it would be easy to just create a static Nat >>rule to the internal load balancer for public load balancing on any >>network tier. >>On Mar 25, 2013 8:46 PM, "Vijay Venkatachalam" < >>vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> If the services are provided by a LBVM, it should have access to >>>both networks, one NIC in the web tier (the guest network where the >>>VIP is >>> present) and one NIC in the App Tier (the guest network where the >>>server vms are present), would that understanding be right? So when >>>provisioning the LB VM the user has to specify these 2 networks? >>> >>> On the similar lines, if an external LB Appliance is providing the >>> service, it has to be wired to both the VIP network and the server >>> vm network. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Vijay V. >>> >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: Alena Prokharchyk [mailto:alena.prokharc...@citrix.com] >>> > Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 4:28 AM >>> > To: cloudstack-...@incubator.apache.org >>> > Cc: Alex Huang; Chiradeep Vittal >>> > Subject: [PROPOSAL] "Internal Load Balancing between VPC tiers" >>> > >>> > I would like to propose a new feature - "Internal Load Balancing >>>between >>> > VPC tiers". With the feature support, you can set up the Load >>>Balancer >>> inside >>> > the VPC without facing the public network side. It will allow to >>>balance >>> > internal traffic between tiers inside the VPC - for example, >>> > traffic >>> coming >>> > from Web Tier to the App tier. >>> > >>> > >>> > Please review the firs draft of FS and provide your comments and >>> feedback. >>> > If you feel like some details are missing, let me know and I'll >>>update it >>> > promptly. >>> > >>> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Internal+Lo >>> > a >>> > d+B >>> > alanc >>> > ing+between+VPC+tiers >>> > >>> > >>> > Alex/Chiradeep, would appreciate your reviewal as you were the >>>original >>> > contributors for the majority of cloudStack Networking code. >>> > >>> > >>> > Thank you, >>> > -Alena. >>> >>> >> > > >
