On 01/12/2015 08:52 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 02:59:50PM +0200, Lior Vernia wrote:
> On 12/01/15 14:44, Oved Ourfali wrote:
>> Hi Sahina,
>> Some comments:
>> 1. As far as I understand, you might not have an IP available immediately after
setupNetworks runs (getCapabilities should run, but it isn't run automatically,
>> 2. Perhaps you should pass not the IP but the name of the network? IPs might
> Actually, IP address can indeed change - which would be very bad for
> gluster functioning! I think moving networks or changing their IP
> addresses via Setup Networks should be blocked if they're used by
> gluster bricks.
In the suggested feature, there is no real storage "role". The "storage
role" title means only "default value for glusterfs IP".
For example, once a brick was created, nothing protects the admin from
accidently removing the storage network, or changing its IP address.
Another "proof" that this is not a real "role", is that it affects
GUI: I am guessing that REST API would not make use of it at all. (maybe
I'm wrong; for sure, REST must be defined in the feature page)
REST API that lists the available networks (with IP addresses) would be
used to select the network and pass to the create gluster volume API
I'll update the feature page with the REST API changes as well.
Maybe that's the behavior we want. But alternatively, Engine can enforce
a stronger linkage between the brick to the network that it uses. When
adding a brick, the dialog would list available networks instead of the
specific IP. As long as the brick is being used, the admin would be
blocked/warned against deleting the network.
Is there a way to block against changing IP address used by a network?
I'm missing a discussion regarding the upgrade path. If we would opt to
requiring a single storage role network in a cluster, in an upgraded
cluster the management network should take this role.
There would not be any change to existing volumes on upgrade, as bricks
have already been added. Users can use the Edit brick option to update
the network to be used, if required as mentioned in "Change network used
by brick "
>> 3. Adding to "2", perhaps using DNS names is a more valid approach?
>> 4. You're using the terminology "role", but it might be confusing,
as we have "roles" with regards to permissions. Consider changing "storage
usage" and not "storage role" in the feature page.
> Well, we've already been using this terminology for a while now
> concerning display/migration roles for networks... That's probably the
> terminology to use.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Sahina Bose" <sabose(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: devel(a)ovirt.org, "users" <users(a)ovirt.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 2:00:16 PM
>>> Subject: [ovirt-users] [Feature review] Select network to be used
>>> Hi all,
>>> Please review the feature page for this proposed solution and provide
>>> your inputs - http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Select_Network_For_Gluster
Users mailing list