It hadn't honestly occurred to me that it was an option to retain the protocol but change the database. I was assuming that, if OVN switches to a different database, it would adopt the database's own protocol for communication to the cluster. Of course, now that you mention it, there is a degree of freedom there, if we were for example to write a proxy that runs in the cluster.
Do you want to argue for or against this approach? On Sun, Mar 06, 2016 at 02:13:58PM +0900, Dan Mihai Dumitriu wrote: > Understood Ben. > > If the central (NB and/or SB) OVSDB were to be replaced, do you think it > would still be preferable to keep the OVSDB protocol between the local > ovn-controller and the central control cluster? Or would it be reasonable > to consider something like XMPP? > > Assuming the OVSDB protocol is kept, has there been some consideration of > the security model, e.g. something like ACLs on various parts of the SB DB, > so that agents have access only to what they need. > > Cheers, > Dan > > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:45 AM, Ben Pfaff <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > There are basically two possible paths here. One path is to enhance > > OVSDB. The other is to switch to a different distributed database. Of > > course, in the latter case the question is "which one?" Until recently, > > we weren't seeing much performance or availability pressure on OVSDB, so > > it made sense to stick with what already worked. Now, we're starting to > > understand the requirements and the bottlenecks better, so it may be > > time to consider what distributed database is right for OVN. Opinions > > are welcome! > > > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:39:54PM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > > > There's a lot of work happening to improve ovsdb performance (both on the > > > client and server sides). There's testing happening in multiple > > > environments (physical and simulated) in the hundreds-of-hypervisors > > > range. Interestingly, most of the bottlenecks we're exposing are on the > > > client side. > > > > > > We have some docs about the current HA story with OpenStack here: > > > > > > http://docs.openstack.org/developer/networking-ovn/faq.html > > > > > > Ben has mentioned that he might pick up the distributed ovsdb-server > > work, > > > which is important to get a much better HA story (or I suspect we'll have > > > to replace ovsdb). I'll let him comment further on intentions and > > status, > > > though. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Dan Mihai Dumitriu <dm...@cornell.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > > > > > What's the current thinking around the OVSDB HA and scale solution? > > > > Needless to say, the single SB DB to which all ovn-controllers connect > > > > could be a liability in various production scenarios. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Dan > > > > On Mar 4, 2016 00:48, "Ben Pfaff" <b...@ovn.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Here's my OVN report for the week, since I'll be in a meeting during > > the > > > > > IRC session today. > > > > > > > > > > The "continuation" feature needed as a basis for others is in. > > Justin > > > > > is reviewing the ARP support patches. > > > > > > > > > > I've spent most of the week in meetings, so there's been minimal > > > > > progress. I'm currently working on some debugging support patches. > > > > > After that, I'm going to work on OVSDB. I'm also interested in > > > > > improving ovn-controller performance. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > dev mailing list > > > > > dev@openvswitch.org > > > > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > dev mailing list > > > > dev@openvswitch.org > > > > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Russell Bryant > > _______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
