Re: [ovirt-devel] ovirt-provider-ovn - appliance inclusion / default enablement

The size of the required components: Name : openvswitch Size : 11 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-common Size : 2.8 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-host Size : 1.9 M Name : ovirt-provider-ovn Size : 224 k Name : python-openvswitch Size : 821 k about 17M total On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Simone Tiraboschi <stirabos(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David < >> didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola < >> sbonazzo(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> Hi, >> >>>>>> with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase >> the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> This raise a few questions. >> >>>>>> The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in >> engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're >> pushing to use it. >> >>>>>> Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? >> >>>>>> Answer given in the commit message of above patch is: >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> We do not want to have a hard dependency in the >> >>>>>> form of an rpm require. >> >>>>>> OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, >> >>>>>> and are still experimental. We would not want to >> >>>>>> force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for >> hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by >> default? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires >> ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires >> ovirt-engine-dwh. >> >>>>>> Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine >> instead of tweaking the appliance? >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not >> enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? >> >>>>>> Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] >> reduce the size of the appliance >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where >> ovirt-provider-ovn >> >>>>> sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the >> default >> >>>>> use case is to place them on the same host. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the >> >>>>> appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of >> >>>>> oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep >> >>>>> the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them >> run >> >>>>> ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies. >> >>>> >> >>>> The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation >> flow, >> >>>> not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add >> ovn >> >>>> to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC). >> >>>> >> >>>> [1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based >> >>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when >> the >> >>>>> appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite. >> >>>> >> >>>> +1 >> >>> >> >>> Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation? >> >> >> >> Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above >> >> was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance. >> > >> > Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this >> > feature, and I want to entice people to use it. >> >> I think that Sandro's question above applies equally well to the >> non-appliance usecase. If it's good enough to be the default for >> non-appliance, might as well be so for the appliance as well. If >> it's not good enough for the appliance, perhaps default to No also >> for non-appliance. >> >> > >> > For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let >> > us not bloat it up. >> >> What's the impact on size? For the appliance image and for the >> eventually-installed machine? >> >> I do not think the impact on appliance size is the major question here, >> but whether we really expect most users to use OVN. But I might be >> surprised... >> >> > Now we have a bug to track it: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452131 > > >> > >> > I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer >> file. >> > >> >> >> >> The appliance-supplied answer file seems is: >> >> >> >> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-appliance.git;a=blob >> ;f=engine-appliance/data/ovirt-engine-answers;h=2881af656329 >> 7a7a3d220dfe479d39f88c12ca46;hb=HEAD >> >> >> >> When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user >> >> asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, >> >> but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here: >> >> >> >> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup. >> git;a=blob;f=src/plugins/gr-he-common/vm/cloud_init.py;h=0a2 >> 0f946d65199423c99769ab51e4fe092465e96;hb=HEAD#l1018 >> >> >> >> None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has: >> >> >> >> DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True >> >> >> >> For this, see: >> >> >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270719 >> >> >> >> -- >> Didi >> _______________________________________________ >> Devel mailing list >> Devel(a)ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > -- MARCIN mIRECKI Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig>