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

[Yedidyah Bar David]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:
>> (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'.
>
> I don't have much to add. It code simplicity vs. deployment flexibility.
> Recently, my opinion (for flexibility) was overruled when ovn-driver
> was added as a requirement of ovirt-host. It can be similarly be
> overruled on Engine. I don't care *that* much about the ability to
> install ovirt-engine with openvswitch baggage. I won't NACK a
> "Require: ovn" if you think it's still useful.

Pushed: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/81960
-- 
Didi