So flavors are for routers with different behaviors that you want the user to be able to choose from (e.g. High performance, slow but free, packet logged, etc). Multiple drivers are for when you have multiple backends providing the same flavor (e.g. The high performance flavor has several drivers for various bare metal routers). On Feb 2, 2016 18:22, "rzang" <rui.z...@foxmail.com> wrote:
> What advantage can we get from putting multiple drivers into one flavor > over strictly limit one flavor one driver (or whatever it is called). > > Thanks, > Rui > > ------------------ Original ------------------ > *From: * "Kevin Benton";<blak...@gmail.com>; > *Send time:* Wednesday, Feb 3, 2016 8:55 AM > *To:* "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"< > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>; > *Subject: * Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] - L3 flavors and issues with > usecases for multiple L3 backends > > Choosing from multiple drivers for the same flavor is scheduling. I didn't > mean automatically selecting other flavors. > On Feb 2, 2016 17:53, "Eichberger, German" <german.eichber...@hpe.com> > wrote: > >> Not that you could call it scheduling. The intent was that the user could >> pick the best flavor for his task (e.g. a gold router as opposed to a >> silver one). The system then would “schedule” the driver configured for >> gold or silver. Rescheduling wasn’t really a consideration… >> >> German >> >> From: Doug Wiegley <doug...@parksidesoftware.com<mailto: >> doug...@parksidesoftware.com>> >> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 8:17 PM >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] - L3 flavors and issues with use >> cases for multiple L3 backends >> >> Yes, scheduling was a big gnarly wart that was punted for the first pass. >> The intention was that any driver you put in a single flavor had equivalent >> capabilities/plumbed to the same networks/etc. >> >> doug >> >> >> On Feb 1, 2016, at 7:08 AM, Kevin Benton <blak...@gmail.com<mailto: >> blak...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> Hi all, >> >> I've been working on an implementation of the multiple L3 backends RFE[1] >> using the flavor framework and I've run into some snags with the >> use-cases.[2] >> >> The first use cases are relatively straightforward where the user >> requests a specific flavor and that request gets dispatched to a driver >> associated with that flavor via a service profile. However, several of the >> use-cases are based around the idea that there is a single flavor with >> multiple drivers and a specific driver will need to be used depending on >> the placement of the router interfaces. i.e. a router cannot be bound to a >> driver until an interface is attached. >> >> This creates some painful coordination problems amongst drivers. For >> example, say the first two networks that a user attaches a router to can be >> reached by all drivers because they use overlays so the first driver chosen >> by the framework works fine. Then the user connects to an external network >> which is only reachable by a different driver. Do we immediately reschedule >> the entire router at that point to the other driver and interrupt the >> traffic between the first two networks? >> >> Even if we are fine with a traffic interruption for rescheduling, what >> should we do when a failure occurs half way through switching over because >> the new driver fails to attach to one of the networks (or the old driver >> fails to detach from one)? It would seem the correct API experience would >> be switch everything back and then return a failure to the caller trying to >> add an interface. This is where things get messy. >> >> If there is a failure during the switch back, we now have a single >> router's resources smeared across two drivers. We can drop the router into >> the ERROR state and re-attempt the switch in a periodic task, or maybe just >> leave it broken. >> >> How should we handle this much orchestration? Should we pull in something >> like taskflow, or maybe defer that use case for now? >> >> What I want to avoid is what happened with ML2 where error handling is >> still a TODO in several cases. (e.g. Any post-commit update or delete >> failures in mechanism drivers will not trigger a revert in state.) >> >> 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1461133 >> 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/< >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-modular-l3-router-plugin-use-cases >> >neutron-modular-l3-router-plugin-use-cases< >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/neutron-modular-l3-router-plugin-use-cases >> > >> >> -- >> Kevin Benton >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org<mailto: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: >> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
