On 7/1/23 02:19, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 6:35 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:08 PM Han Zhou wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:15 AM Ihar Hrachyshka
> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:17 AM Lucas Martins
>
On Fri, Jun 30, 2023 at 6:35 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:08 PM Han Zhou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:15 AM Ihar Hrachyshka
wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:17 AM Lucas Martins
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi Han, all
> > > >
> >
Hi all,
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 7:08 PM Han Zhou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:15 AM Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:17 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi Han, all
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 8:02 PM Han Zhou wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
On Mon, May 1, 2023 at 8:30 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On 4/27/23 19:54, Han Zhou wrote:
> >> (Random thought) NB could have an API (ChassisDeprovisionRequest?)
> >> that would be used by CMS to request cleanup for a chassis by name.
> >> Northd could then update the object with the status of
On 4/27/23 19:54, Han Zhou wrote:
>> (Random thought) NB could have an API (ChassisDeprovisionRequest?)
>> that would be used by CMS to request cleanup for a chassis by name.
>> Northd could then update the object with the status of the request, or
>> delete it once it's processed.
>>
> This may
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:15 AM Ihar Hrachyshka
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:17 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
> >
> > Hi Han, all
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 8:02 PM Han Zhou wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Lucas Martins
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks all
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 5:17 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
>
> Hi Han, all
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 8:02 PM Han Zhou wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
> > >
> > > Thanks all for the discussion and all the ideas here.
> > >
> > > After reading the emails, I
Hi Han, all
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 8:02 PM Han Zhou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
> >
> > Thanks all for the discussion and all the ideas here.
> >
> > After reading the emails, I think it boils down to two proposed approaches:
> >
> > 1) CMS to continue
(Sorry that my previous reply includes redundant texts. Please ignore that
one and use this version :D)
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
>
> Thanks all for the discussion and all the ideas here.
>
> After reading the emails, I think it boils down to two proposed
approaches:
>
On Mon, Apr 17, 2023 at 7:18 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
>
> Thanks all for the discussion and all the ideas here.
>
> After reading the emails, I think it boils down to two proposed
approaches:
>
> 1) CMS to continue to connect to the Southbound database if they need
> information about the physical
Thanks all for the discussion and all the ideas here.
After reading the emails, I think it boils down to two proposed approaches:
1) CMS to continue to connect to the Southbound database if they need
information about the physical location of the resources. That would
avoid the inefficiency of
On 4/13/23 21:42, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:01 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>
>> On 4/13/23 18:26, Han Zhou wrote:
>>
>> I suggest a different approach if we want to go ahead and propagate
>>> such
>> information to the NB: can't we store the "active chassis"
>
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:01 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>
> On 4/13/23 18:26, Han Zhou wrote:
>
> I suggest a different approach if we want to go ahead and propagate
> > such
> information to the NB: can't we store the "active chassis"
information
> per
Hi all,
I just caught up on this discussion and wanted to complicate things
further by suggesting another idea. I think the Red Hat folks have heard
this before, but I'm not sure if it has been brought up on this list before.
Aside from this issue, there is also this high-priority issue from
On 4/13/23 18:26, Han Zhou wrote:
I suggest a different approach if we want to go ahead and propagate
> such
information to the NB: can't we store the "active chassis" information
per Gateway_chassis/HA_Chassis_group instead? That's
O(number-of-chassis) records that we
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 6:33 AM Lucas Martins wrote:
>
> Hi Han, Dumitru and Luis,
>
> Thanks for the discussion and ideas so far. My reply is inline:
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:45 AM Luis Tomas Bolivar
wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:33 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> >>
> >> On
Hi Han, Dumitru and Luis,
Thanks for the discussion and ideas so far. My reply is inline:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:45 AM Luis Tomas Bolivar wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:33 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
>>
>> On 4/12/23 23:07, Han Zhou wrote:
>> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:01 AM wrote:
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 9:33 AM Dumitru Ceara wrote:
> On 4/12/23 23:07, Han Zhou wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:01 AM wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Lucas Alvares Gomes
> >>
> >> In order for the CMS to know which Chassis a distributed gateway port
> >> is bond to, this patch updates the
On 4/12/23 23:07, Han Zhou wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:01 AM wrote:
>>
>> From: Lucas Alvares Gomes
>>
>> In order for the CMS to know which Chassis a distributed gateway port
>> is bond to, this patch updates the ovn-northd daemon to populate the
>> Logical_Router_Port table with that
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 8:01 AM wrote:
>
> From: Lucas Alvares Gomes
>
> In order for the CMS to know which Chassis a distributed gateway port
> is bond to, this patch updates the ovn-northd daemon to populate the
> Logical_Router_Port table with that information.
>
> To avoid changing the
From: Lucas Alvares Gomes
In order for the CMS to know which Chassis a distributed gateway port
is bond to, this patch updates the ovn-northd daemon to populate the
Logical_Router_Port table with that information.
To avoid changing the database schema, ovn-northd is setting a new key
called
21 matches
Mail list logo
