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

[Yedidyah Bar David]

(Re-opening an old thread)

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina <mperina at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > 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.
>>>>
>>>> In 4.2, OVN provider is configured by default on the Engine host, but
>>>> the user can opt to avoid that. He can then configure the provider
>>>> manually, and add it manually to Engine. We have already limited the
>>>> automatic configuration of OVN to the case of it running on the same
>>>> host.
>>>>
>>>> When looked from this perspective, adding an explicit rpm-level
>>>> Requires, does not make things much worse, it only makes reality
>>>> visible.
>>>>
>>>> > And even if we don't support OVN on different host in
>>>> > 4.2, we can prepare for the future ...
>>>>
>>>> A big question is whether that future includes installing things on a
>>>> remote host (as in DWH), or alternatively spawning a container.
>>>> Implementing the OVN deployment to the Engine machine took quite a big
>>>> effort[1]. I worry that extending it to allow remote host would be
>>>> even more consuming, it's not a minor preparation but a mid-size
>>>> feature on its own.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not sure anyone answered how heavy (CPU, memory, disk size) it is on the
>>> Engine.
>>
>> On another thread, Sandro mentioned the effect on disk size: +17Mb, +2%.
>>
>> CPU and Memory are much harder to estimate, as they depend on the
>> number of networks and hosts controlled by OVN. Mor, can you provide
>> numbers for a small cluster that you tested?
>
> I believe these are irrelevant if the user opts to not configure/run
> OVN on the engine machine. My (not sure about Yaniv's) question was only
> about disk space, which iiuc is the only implication of making engine
> Require: ovn. Still, if possible, it will be useful if someone can
> provide cpu/memory use, and also the list of dependencies for the ovn
> package (and the provider package) - especially if there are ones that
> are not from the base OS.

Any update?

I still think that we should either make the engine Require: ovn
or change the default to 'No'.
-- 
Didi