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

On 04/10/2013 02:23 PM, Sahina Bose wrote: > >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. I think, getVdsCaps can include this. Dan, is it good idea?