[ovs-discuss] clustered OVSDB in 2.9 or 2.10?
I posted the patches to add clustering support to OVSDB at the end of last year so that it was technically qualified to make it into OVS 2.9. At least in OVS 2.9, it will be marked "experimental", since it's a major change that might need work to be suitable for production (we simply don't know yet). Since it's a huge change, review is naturally taking a while. It occurred to me that it might make more sense to get this into master just after we branch for 2.9. Then it would be basically the first feature in 2.10. That would give us the whole 2.10 release cycle to get it from experimental to something production quality, and we could in theory release 2.10 with a solid clustered OVSDB. Instead of experimental in 2.9 and then production in 2.10, we'd just have production in 2.10. That might also give us some opportunity to make breaking changes within the 2.10 cycle that users who were experimenting with 2.9 might be reluctant to accept as part of an upgrade. Does anyone have thoughts on which is the preferred path? Thanks, Ben. ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] clustered OVSDB in 2.9 or 2.10?
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > I posted the patches to add clustering support to OVSDB at the end of > last year so that it was technically qualified to make it into OVS 2.9. > At least in OVS 2.9, it will be marked "experimental", since it's a > major change that might need work to be suitable for production (we > simply don't know yet). Since it's a huge change, review is naturally > taking a while. > > It occurred to me that it might make more sense to get this into master > just after we branch for 2.9. Then it would be basically the first > feature in 2.10. That would give us the whole 2.10 release cycle to get > it from experimental to something production quality, and we could in > theory release 2.10 with a solid clustered OVSDB. Instead of > experimental in 2.9 and then production in 2.10, we'd just have > production in 2.10. That might also give us some opportunity to make > breaking changes within the 2.10 cycle that users who were experimenting > with 2.9 might be reluctant to accept as part of an upgrade. > > Does anyone have thoughts on which is the preferred path? > Hi Ben, I see one advantage for OpenStack Tripleo + OVN integration in having this feature supported as expiremental in OVS 2.9. Once we have OVS 2.9 availalbe in RDO packages we could work on integrating this feature (as optional) during OVN deployments. The scope of this work would be to start OVN db services with clustering enabled and configuring it. The next OpenStack release is Queens and is under development, but we are already late for new features so it is fine. The release after Queens is Rocky and it will be easier to integrate clustered ovsdb feature with Rocky release if we have it in OVS 2.9. Thanks Numan > Thanks, > > Ben. > ___ > discuss mailing list > disc...@openvswitch.org > https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss > ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] clustered OVSDB in 2.9 or 2.10?
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Numan Siddique wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: >> >> I posted the patches to add clustering support to OVSDB at the end of >> last year so that it was technically qualified to make it into OVS 2.9. >> At least in OVS 2.9, it will be marked "experimental", since it's a >> major change that might need work to be suitable for production (we >> simply don't know yet). Since it's a huge change, review is naturally >> taking a while. >> >> It occurred to me that it might make more sense to get this into master >> just after we branch for 2.9. Then it would be basically the first >> feature in 2.10. That would give us the whole 2.10 release cycle to get >> it from experimental to something production quality, and we could in >> theory release 2.10 with a solid clustered OVSDB. Instead of >> experimental in 2.9 and then production in 2.10, we'd just have >> production in 2.10. That might also give us some opportunity to make >> breaking changes within the 2.10 cycle that users who were experimenting >> with 2.9 might be reluctant to accept as part of an upgrade. >> >> Does anyone have thoughts on which is the preferred path? > > > Hi Ben, > > I see one advantage for OpenStack Tripleo + OVN integration in having this > feature > supported as expiremental in OVS 2.9. Once we have OVS 2.9 availalbe in RDO > packages > we could work on integrating this feature (as optional) during OVN > deployments. The scope of > this work would be to start OVN db services with clustering enabled and > configuring it. > The next OpenStack release is Queens and is under development, but we are > already late for new > features so it is fine. The release after Queens is Rocky and it will be > easier to integrate > clustered ovsdb feature with Rocky release if we have it in OVS 2.9. This is the main benefit of putting it in 2.9 to me -- it makes it easier to work on integration. If it's in 2.9, OpenStack (as one example) can do integration work and merge it as an optional feature. If it's deferred to 2.10, that work can begin, but the patches can't be merged until the feature is in a release. It's also a bit more difficult to test it in integrated CI until it's in a release. It's also understandable if 2.9 turns out to be too aggressive. -- Russell Bryant ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
Re: [ovs-discuss] clustered OVSDB in 2.9 or 2.10?
On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 08:46:50AM -0500, Russell Bryant wrote: > On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 2:30 AM, Numan Siddique wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Ben Pfaff wrote: > >> > >> I posted the patches to add clustering support to OVSDB at the end of > >> last year so that it was technically qualified to make it into OVS 2.9. > >> At least in OVS 2.9, it will be marked "experimental", since it's a > >> major change that might need work to be suitable for production (we > >> simply don't know yet). Since it's a huge change, review is naturally > >> taking a while. > >> > >> It occurred to me that it might make more sense to get this into master > >> just after we branch for 2.9. Then it would be basically the first > >> feature in 2.10. That would give us the whole 2.10 release cycle to get > >> it from experimental to something production quality, and we could in > >> theory release 2.10 with a solid clustered OVSDB. Instead of > >> experimental in 2.9 and then production in 2.10, we'd just have > >> production in 2.10. That might also give us some opportunity to make > >> breaking changes within the 2.10 cycle that users who were experimenting > >> with 2.9 might be reluctant to accept as part of an upgrade. > >> > >> Does anyone have thoughts on which is the preferred path? > > > > > > Hi Ben, > > > > I see one advantage for OpenStack Tripleo + OVN integration in having this > > feature > > supported as expiremental in OVS 2.9. Once we have OVS 2.9 availalbe in RDO > > packages > > we could work on integrating this feature (as optional) during OVN > > deployments. The scope of > > this work would be to start OVN db services with clustering enabled and > > configuring it. > > The next OpenStack release is Queens and is under development, but we are > > already late for new > > features so it is fine. The release after Queens is Rocky and it will be > > easier to integrate > > clustered ovsdb feature with Rocky release if we have it in OVS 2.9. > > This is the main benefit of putting it in 2.9 to me -- it makes it > easier to work on integration. > > If it's in 2.9, OpenStack (as one example) can do integration work and > merge it as an optional feature. If it's deferred to 2.10, that work > can begin, but the patches can't be merged until the feature is in a > release. It's also a bit more difficult to test it in integrated CI > until it's in a release. > > It's also understandable if 2.9 turns out to be too aggressive. OK. We'll see how the reviews go. If it doesn't seem like it's going to be totally last minute or actually delay 2.9, I'll get it in. ___ discuss mailing list disc...@openvswitch.org https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
