If the decision is to not add the provider to ovirt-appliance, we will need to disable ovn installation during ovirt-appliance related tests: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/76998/ On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Marcin Mirecki <mmirecki@redhat.com> wrote:
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@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David < didi@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola < sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase
>>> >>> 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
>>> 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
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. pushing to use it. 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:
-- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
MARCIN mIRECKI
Red Hat
-- MARCIN mIRECKI Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig>