On 8/28/13 11:28 AM, "Vishvananda Ishaya" <vishvana...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Aug 26, 2013, at 6:14 PM, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> >> On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:06 PM, Edgar Magana <emag...@plumgrid.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Developers, >>> >>> Let me explain my point of view on this topic and please share your >>>thoughts in order to merge this new feature ASAP. >>> >>> My understanding is that multi-host is nova-network HA and we are >>>implementing this bp >>>https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/quantum-multihost for >>>the same reason. >>> So, If in neutron configuration admin enables multi-host: >>> etc/dhcp_agent.ini >>> >>> # Support multi host networks >>> # enable_multihost = False >>> >>> Why do tenants needs to be aware of this? They should just create >>>networks in the way they normally do and not by adding the "multihost" >>>extension. >> >> I was pretty confused until I looked at the nova-network HA doc [1]. >>The proposed design would seem to emulate nova-network's multi-host HA >>option, where it was necessary to both run nova-network on every compute >>node and create a network explicitly as multi-host. I'm not sure why >>nova-network was implemented in this way, since it would appear that >>multi-host is basically all-or-nothing. Once nova-network services are >>running on every compute node, what does it mean to create a network >>that is not multi-host? > >Just to add a little background to the nova-network multi-host: The fact >that the multi_host flag is stored per-network as opposed to a >configuration was an implementation detail. While in theory this would >support configurations where some networks are multi_host and other ones >are not, I am not aware of any deployments where both are used together. > >That said, If there is potential value in offering both, it seems like it >should be under the control of the deployer not the user. In other words >the deployer should be able to set the default network type and enforce >whether setting the type is exposed to the user at all. +1 for leaving it to the deployer and not the user. > >Also, one final point. In my mind, multi-host is strictly better than >single host, if I were to redesign nova-network today, I would get rid of >the single host mode completely. +1 again. >Vish > >> >> So, to Edgar's question - is there a reason other than 'be like >>nova-network' for requiring neutron multi-host to be configured >>per-network? >> >> >> m. >> >> 1: >>http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/openstack-compute/admin/content/existing- >>ha-networking-options.html >> >> >>> I could be totally wrong and crazy, so please provide some feedback. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Edgar >>> >>> >>> From: Yongsheng Gong <gong...@unitedstack.com> >>> Date: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:58 PM >>> To: "Kyle Mestery (kmestery)" <kmest...@cisco.com>, Aaron Rosen >>><aro...@nicira.com>, Armando Migliaccio <amigliac...@vmware.com>, >>>Akihiro MOTOKI <amot...@gmail.com>, Edgar Magana >>><emag...@plumgrid.com>, Maru Newby <ma...@redhat.com>, Nachi Ueno >>><na...@nttmcl.com>, Salvatore Orlando <sorla...@nicira.com>, Sumit >>>Naiksatam <sumit.naiksa...@bigswitch.com>, Mark McClain >>><mark.mccl...@dreamhost.com>, Gary Kotton <gkot...@vmware.com>, Robert >>>Kukura <rkuk...@redhat.com> >>> Cc: OpenStack List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> Subject: Re: About multihost patch review >>> >>> Hi, >>> Edgar Magana has commented to say: >>> 'This is the part that for me is confusing and I will need some >>>clarification from the community. Do we expect to have the multi-host >>>feature as an extension or something that will natural work as long as >>>the deployment include more than one Network Node. In my opinion, >>>Neutron deployments with more than one Network Node by default should >>>call DHCP agents in all those nodes without the need to use an >>>extension. If the community has decided to do this by extensions, then >>>I am fine' at >>> >>>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37919/11/neutron/extensions/multihostne >>>twork.py >>> >>> I have commented back, what is your opinion about it? >>> >>> Regards, >>> Yong Sheng Gong >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery) >>><kmest...@cisco.com> wrote: >>>> Hi Yong: >>>> >>>> I'll review this and try it out today. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Kyle >>>> >>>> On Aug 15, 2013, at 10:01 PM, Yongsheng Gong >>>><gong...@unitedstack.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The multihost patch is there for a long long time, can someone help >>>>>to review? >>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/37919/ >>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev