[ovirt-devel] OVN provider's firewalld services deployment during engine setup

[Martin Perina]

Will OVN provider be mandatory for all engine 4.2 installation? Can OVN
provider be installed on different host than engine? If not mandatory or
"may be on different host", then it should be handled similar way as DWH,
so it should be in separate package and it's engine-setup part should also
be in separate package. And even if we don't support OVN on different host
in 4.2, we can prepare for the future ...

Martin

On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > We're trying to come up with a way to deploy OVN provider's firewalld
> > services during engine setup. The naive solution of querying the user
> during
> > customization and then installing during STAGE_PACKAGES fails as
> firewalld
> > configuration happens prior to it.
> >
> > We thought of a couple of possible solutions we'd like your opinions on
> > (ordered in perceived level of difficulty):
> >
> > 1) Ship/require the packages with ovirt-engine without requiring user
> input.
> > This essentially couples engine with OVN and disregards a future where
> OVN
> > doesn't run alongside Engine.
>
> How much space will this add? RPMs/Installed-size?
>
> This is also what we do today with dwh. It can run in the engine machine or
> on a different one, but the engine still (indirectly) requires it. So it's
> always shipped, and if user chooses to not configure it, it still takes
> space, and user has to set it up elsewhere.
>
> >
> > 2) Install the packages immediately following user input during
> > customization. A bit hacky and doesn't conceptually fit the stage of
> > customization.
> >
> > 3) Move user input to STAGE_INTERNAL_PACKAGES. Feels more disruptive
> than #1
> > to the current otopi flow as STAGE_INTERNAL_PACKAGES is dedicated for
> > packages that are required for otopi itself to operate. Not only this
> > doesn't fit conceptually, it introduces user input to a stage that
> shouldn't
> > have any.
> >
> > 4) Move firewalld configuration to happen after STAGE_PACKAGES.
>
> This is a rather big change to how things are done, and breaks iptables
> support. If we want to keep iptables support, and allow prompting the user
> with the changes that will be done to iptables [1], we must know beforehand
> which ports will need to be opened, so we need the firewalld service files
> during customization.
>
> Thinking about this, another option is to package the service files
> separately (in ovn itself, one day, or in the provider, for now) -
> and require by the engine only this sub-package, which should be tiny
> and have no dependencies (except for firewalld perhaps).
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1109326
>
> >
> > 5) Refactor to prepare the grounds for OVN/Engine separation. At this
> point
> > this feels very ambiguous. We don't yet know how will containers be
> accessed
> > (is ssh guaranteed?) in the future or generally how should a remote
> > installation look like.
>
> Agreed. While "this is the future", I do not think we can do anything
> worthy
> for 4.2.
>
> Best,
>
> >
> > Any input/questions are appreciated.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Leon
>
>
>
> --
> Didi
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170613/9bc88a3d/attachment.html>