On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 1:28 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. > yes, the default is not multihost, admin (by policy) can set up multihost network > > 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. > > problem is: the current design of neutron is single host already (If I get your point). To do multihost automatically, it needs much effort . > 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/multihostnetwork.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