On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
(Re-opening an old thread)
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina <mperina@redhat.com> 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.
Pushed: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/81960 -- Didi