Re: [Engine-devel] [vdsm] ovirt-host-deploy and multible bridges

On 04/10/2013 02:19 PM, Balamurugan Arumugam wrote: > On 04/10/2013 11:18 AM, Sahina Bose wrote: >> >> On 04/10/2013 12:25 AM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: >>> On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 07:28:17PM +0530, Balamurugan Arumugam wrote: >>>> On 04/09/2013 06:37 PM, Sahina Bose wrote: >>>>> Decoding "correct address" - glusterHostsList should return any >>>>> ipAddress that engine knows as being associated with host. >>>>> It could be either ipAddress used while adding host (stored as >>>>> hostname >>>>> in vds_static) or any of the ipAddresses populated in vds_interface >>>>> table (addr column) . >>>>> I do not have enough knowledge about this bit of code to say what >>>>> entries are made in vds_interface table. I know there's an entry for >>>>> ovirtmgmt here but not sure if this gets added as part of addHost >>>>> flow >>>>> or not. >>>>> >>>> I guess, vds_interface table is populated by ips given by vdsm >>>> through getVdsCaps. >>>> >>>> Current glusterHostsList provides one of ipaddress of the local host >>>> (other than 127.*.*.*). If virbr0 is enabled, it picks up >>>> 192.168.122.1 ip address of the bridge and sends to the engine, but >>>> this entry is missing in the table. >>>> >>>> The requirement is that we need a ip of the local host which is also >>>> stored in the database. >>>> >>>> The database has entries of ips of a host those are from physical >>>> nics and/or bridges who has slaves to nics. >>> It's not something I've tested, or want to encourage, but currently, >>> outside of gluster, Vdsm may run behind a fancy NAT as a virtual >>> server. >>> I.e., its local undress may be utterly different from the address used >>> by Engine. >>> >>> I'd like to keep having this flexibility, and not to assume otherwise. >>> >>> Why does glusterHostsList need to return the ip of the management >>> network? The client that issued this verb has to know that IP in the >>> first place. >>> >>> I notice that the idiom "_getLocalIpAddress() or _getGlusterHostName()" >>> is used all too often in vdsm/gluster/cli.py. >>> >>> How about changing the Vdsm/Engine API so that the string >>> "localhost" is >>> returned instead? Then, Engine can replace it with whatever it seems >>> fit. >>> >>> Dan. >> Dan, >> >> Thanks for clarifying. Looks like relying on the IpAddress to determine >> the host will be prone to errors going forward. >> We will change the approach and start using the UUID that gluster peer >> status returns to identify host - will create a new verb glusterPeerList >> that does this. >> > > Current glusterHostsList provides list of > {'hostname': HOSTNAME, 'uuid': UUID, 'status': STATE} including local > host. > > What will be the difference between new glusterPeerList and existing > glusterHostsList? > If this is the case, we just need to make sure at engine we use UUID and not IP address to identify host. We would still need a vdsm verb that will return the current host gluster UUID, to store in engine in case of Add Host flow.

> > >> And for the current host, like you mentioned, since the engine already >> knows which vdsm host this command is executed on, the engine will not >> rely on vdsm to return the host's IP. >> > >