On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
When looked from this perspective, adding an explicit rpm-level
Requires, does not make things much worse, it only makes reality
> 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. 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.