Re: [ovirt-devel] OVN provider's firewalld services deployment during engine setup

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > (Re-opening an old thread) > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina <mperina(a)redhat.com&gt; >>>>> 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 >>>>> host. >>>>> >>>>> When looked from this perspective, adding an explicit rpm-level >>>>> Requires, does not make things much worse, it only makes reality >>>>> visible. >>>>> >>>>> > 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[1]. 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> I'm not sure anyone answered how heavy (CPU, memory, disk size) it is on the >>>> Engine. >>> >>> On another thread, Sandro mentioned the effect on disk size: +17Mb, +2%. >>> >>> CPU and Memory are much harder to estimate, as they depend on the >>> number of networks and hosts controlled by OVN. Mor, can you provide >>> numbers for a small cluster that you tested? >> >> I believe these are irrelevant if the user opts to not configure/run >> OVN on the engine machine. My (not sure about Yaniv's) question was only >> about disk space, which iiuc is the only implication of making engine >> Require: ovn. Still, if possible, it will be useful if someone can >> provide cpu/memory use, and also the list of dependencies for the ovn >> package (and the provider package) - especially if there are ones that >> are not from the base OS. > > Any update? > > I still think that we should either make the engine Require: ovn > or change the default to 'No'. I don't have much to add. It code simplicity vs. deployment flexibility. Recently, my opinion (for flexibility) was overruled when ovn-driver was added as a requirement of ovirt-host. It can be similarly be overruled on Engine. I don't care *that* much about the ability to install ovirt-engine with openvswitch baggage. I won't NACK a "Require: ovn" if you think it's still useful.