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

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=2881af6 > 563297a7a3d220dfe479d39f88c12ca46;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=0 > a20f946d65199423c99769ab51e4fe092465e96;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