ovirt-provider-ovn - appliance inclusion / default enablement
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is: We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host. So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default? How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance? If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1401931> - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance Thanks, -- SANDRO BONAZZOLA ASSOCIATE MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA ENG VIRTUALIZATION R&D Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> <https://red.ht/sig> TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED. <https://redhat.com/trusted>
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies.
This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is:
We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host.
So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default?
How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance?
If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host. I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies. For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite. Regards, Dan.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies.
This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is:
We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host.
So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default?
How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance?
If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host.
I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC). [1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Regards, Dan. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- Didi
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies.
This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is:
We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host.
So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default?
How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance?
If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host.
I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC).
[1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies.
This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is:
We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host.
So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default?
How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance?
If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host.
I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC).
[1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance. The appliance-supplied answer file seems is: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-appliance.git;a=blob;f=engine-applia... When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup.git;a=blob;f=src... None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has: DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True For this, see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270719 -- Didi
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies.
This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is:
We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host.
So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default?
How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance?
If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host.
I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC).
[1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance.
Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this feature, and I want to entice people to use it. For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let us not bloat it up. I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer file.
The appliance-supplied answer file seems is:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-appliance.git;a=blob;f=engine-applia...
When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup.git;a=blob;f=src...
None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has:
DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True
For this, see:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi, with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies.
This raise a few questions. The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're pushing to use it. Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? Answer given in the commit message of above patch is:
We do not want to have a hard dependency in the form of an rpm require. OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, and are still experimental. We would not want to force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host.
So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default?
How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance?
If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host.
I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC).
[1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance.
Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this feature, and I want to entice people to use it.
I think that Sandro's question above applies equally well to the non-appliance usecase. If it's good enough to be the default for non-appliance, might as well be so for the appliance as well. If it's not good enough for the appliance, perhaps default to No also for non-appliance.
For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let us not bloat it up.
What's the impact on size? For the appliance image and for the eventually-installed machine? I do not think the impact on appliance size is the major question here, but whether we really expect most users to use OVN. But I might be surprised...
I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer file.
The appliance-supplied answer file seems is:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-appliance.git;a=blob;f=engine-applia...
When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup.git;a=blob;f=src...
None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has:
DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True
For this, see:
-- Didi
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola < sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote: > > Hi, > with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. > > This raise a few questions. > The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're
> Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? > Answer given in the commit message of above patch is: > > We do not want to have a hard dependency in the > form of an rpm require. > OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, > and are still experimental. We would not want to > force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host. > > So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default? > > How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. > Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance? > > If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? > Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: pushing to use it. the size of the appliance
Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where
ovirt-provider-ovn
sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default use case is to place them on the same host.
I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC).
[1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance.
Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this feature, and I want to entice people to use it.
I think that Sandro's question above applies equally well to the non-appliance usecase. If it's good enough to be the default for non-appliance, might as well be so for the appliance as well. If it's not good enough for the appliance, perhaps default to No also for non-appliance.
For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let us not bloat it up.
What's the impact on size? For the appliance image and for the eventually-installed machine?
I do not think the impact on appliance size is the major question here, but whether we really expect most users to use OVN. But I might be surprised...
Now we have a bug to track it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452131
I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer file.
The appliance-supplied answer file seems is:
a=blob;f=engine-appliance/data/ovirt-engine-answers;h= 2881af6563297a7a3d220dfe479d39f88c12ca46;hb=HEAD
When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here:
setup.git;a=blob;f=src/plugins/gr-he-common/vm/cloud_init.py;h= 0a20f946d65199423c99769ab51e4fe092465e96;hb=HEAD#l1018
None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has:
DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True
For this, see:
-- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
The size of the required components: Name : openvswitch Size : 11 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-common Size : 2.8 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-host Size : 1.9 M Name : ovirt-provider-ovn Size : 224 k Name : python-openvswitch Size : 821 k about 17M total On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Simone Tiraboschi <stirabos@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola < sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase
>> >> This raise a few questions. >> The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're
>> Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? >> Answer given in the commit message of above patch is: >> >> We do not want to have a hard dependency in the >> form of an rpm require. >> OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, >> and are still experimental. We would not want to >> force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host. >> >> So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default? >> >> How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. >> Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance? >> >> If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? >> Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. pushing to use it. the size of the appliance
> > Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn > sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default > use case is to place them on the same host. > > I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the > appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of > oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep > the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run > ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies.
The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC).
[1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based
> > For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when the > appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite.
+1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance.
Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this feature, and I want to entice people to use it.
I think that Sandro's question above applies equally well to the non-appliance usecase. If it's good enough to be the default for non-appliance, might as well be so for the appliance as well. If it's not good enough for the appliance, perhaps default to No also for non-appliance.
For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let us not bloat it up.
What's the impact on size? For the appliance image and for the eventually-installed machine?
I do not think the impact on appliance size is the major question here, but whether we really expect most users to use OVN. But I might be surprised...
Now we have a bug to track it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452131
I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer
file.
The appliance-supplied answer file seems is:
blob;f=engine-appliance/data/ovirt-engine-answers;h=2881af6 563297a7a3d220dfe479d39f88c12ca46;hb=HEAD
When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup.
git;a=blob;f=src/plugins/gr-he-common/vm/cloud_init.py;h=0 a20f946d65199423c99769ab51e4fe092465e96;hb=HEAD#l1018
None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has:
DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True
For this, see:
-- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- MARCIN mIRECKI Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig>
If the decision is to not add the provider to ovirt-appliance, we will need to disable ovn installation during ovirt-appliance related tests: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/76998/ On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Marcin Mirecki <mmirecki@redhat.com> wrote:
The size of the required components:
Name : openvswitch Size : 11 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-common Size : 2.8 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-host Size : 1.9 M Name : ovirt-provider-ovn Size : 224 k Name : python-openvswitch Size : 821 k
about 17M total
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Simone Tiraboschi <stirabos@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David < didi@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola < sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase
>>> >>> This raise a few questions. >>> The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're
>>> Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? >>> Answer given in the commit message of above patch is: >>> >>> We do not want to have a hard dependency in the >>> form of an rpm require. >>> OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, >>> and are still experimental. We would not want to >>> force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host. >>> >>> So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default? >>> >>> How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. >>> Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance? >>> >>> If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? >>> Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance >> >> Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn >> sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default >> use case is to place them on the same host. >> >> I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the >> appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of >> oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep >> the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run >> ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies. > > The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, > not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn > to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC). > > [1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based > >> >> For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. pushing to use it. the
>> appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite. > > +1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance.
Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this feature, and I want to entice people to use it.
I think that Sandro's question above applies equally well to the non-appliance usecase. If it's good enough to be the default for non-appliance, might as well be so for the appliance as well. If it's not good enough for the appliance, perhaps default to No also for non-appliance.
For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let us not bloat it up.
What's the impact on size? For the appliance image and for the eventually-installed machine?
I do not think the impact on appliance size is the major question here, but whether we really expect most users to use OVN. But I might be surprised...
Now we have a bug to track it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452131
I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer
file.
The appliance-supplied answer file seems is:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-appliance.git;a=blob
;f=engine-appliance/data/ovirt-engine-answers;h=2881af656329 7a7a3d220dfe479d39f88c12ca46;hb=HEAD
When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup.
git;a=blob;f=src/plugins/gr-he-common/vm/cloud_init.py;h=0a2 0f946d65199423c99769ab51e4fe092465e96;hb=HEAD#l1018
None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has:
DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True
For this, see:
-- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
MARCIN mIRECKI
Red Hat
-- MARCIN mIRECKI Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com> <https://red.ht/sig>
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Marcin Mirecki <mmirecki@redhat.com> wrote:
The size of the required components:
Name : openvswitch Size : 11 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-common Size : 2.8 M Name : openvswitch-ovn-host Size : 1.9 M Name : ovirt-provider-ovn Size : 224 k Name : python-openvswitch Size : 821 k
about 17M total
Latest nightly built appliance from master [1] is 751MB so we are talking about a 2% increment. If OVN if something that could interest a great part of our users, and personally I absolutely think so, I'd suggest to simply include it. [1] http://resources.ovirt.org/pub/ovirt-master-snapshot/rpm/el7/noarch/ovirt-en...
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 3:26 PM, Simone Tiraboschi <stirabos@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David < didi@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola < sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> with https://gerrit.ovirt.org/76855 it's requested to increase
>>> >>> This raise a few questions. >>> The support for ovirt-provider-ovn is enabled by default in engine-setup and going to be installed by default in the appliance so we're
>>> Why not requiring it at ovirt-engine spec file level? >>> Answer given in the commit message of above patch is: >>> >>> We do not want to have a hard dependency in the >>> form of an rpm require. >>> OVN and openvswitch are relatively heavy and complex, >>> and are still experimental. We would not want to >>> force everybody to pull them onto any Engine host. >>> >>> So why adding it to the appliance, which is the default for hosted engine which is our recommeded way to deploy oVirt, and enable it by default? >>> >>> How this differs from DWH? ovirt-engine requires ovirt-engine-setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh setup which requires ovirt-engine-dwh. >>> Why can't we just require ovirt-provider-ovn in ovirt-engine instead of tweaking the appliance? >>> >>> If we decide it's not mandatory, why not make the default to not enabling it in engine-setup and avoid to add it to the appliance? >>> Being optional, adding it collides with Bug 1401931 - [RFE] reduce the size of the appliance >> >> Much like with DWH, I can envisage a use case where ovirt-provider-ovn >> sits on a remote host, rather than on Engine's. However, the default >> use case is to place them on the same host. >> >> I thought that it would be a good idea to include OVN on the >> appliance, as a means to showcase this new and exciting feature of >> oVirt. However, it is not a must. We can say that we'd like to keep >> the appliance small; if someone wants to use OVN with it, let them run >> ovirt-engine-setup manually, and pull in the dependencies. > > The appliance is assumed to (soon?) be our standard installation flow, > not a way to showcase things. For the latter, you might want to add ovn > to ovirt-live or to the ovirt demo tool [1] (not yet released IIUC). > > [1] https://trello.com/b/wocfflzf/sales-demo-tool-lago-based > >> >> For this we'd need to flip the default, and not install OVN when
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote: the appliance size by adding ovirt-provider-ovn and its dependencies. pushing to use it. the
>> appliance is created, and skip OVN test in the offline test suite. > > +1
Could you point us to the answer file used for appliance creation?
Do you want to keep the default True for non-appliance? My +1 above was also for reverting the default, not only in appliance.
Oh. I still want to have OVN by default for non-appliance. I like this feature, and I want to entice people to use it.
I think that Sandro's question above applies equally well to the non-appliance usecase. If it's good enough to be the default for non-appliance, might as well be so for the appliance as well. If it's not good enough for the appliance, perhaps default to No also for non-appliance.
For appliance I understand that we have a size limitation, so ok, let us not bloat it up.
What's the impact on size? For the appliance image and for the eventually-installed machine?
I do not think the impact on appliance size is the major question here, but whether we really expect most users to use OVN. But I might be surprised...
Now we have a bug to track it: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1452131
I hope you are also fine with disabling ovn in the following answer
file.
The appliance-supplied answer file seems is:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-appliance.git;a=blob
;f=engine-appliance/data/ovirt-engine-answers;h=2881af656329 7a7a3d220dfe479d39f88c12ca46;hb=HEAD
When hosted-engine --deploy is using the appliance, and if the user asks to run engine-setup automatically, it uses above file, but also adds another file, auto-generated, see here:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-setup.
git;a=blob;f=src/plugins/gr-he-common/vm/cloud_init.py;h=0a2 0f946d65199423c99769ab51e4fe092465e96;hb=HEAD#l1018
None of them has the answer for OVN. Latter has:
DIALOG/autoAcceptDefault=bool:True
For this, see:
-- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--
MARCIN mIRECKI
Red Hat
participants (5)
-
Dan Kenigsberg -
Marcin Mirecki -
Sandro Bonazzola -
Simone Tiraboschi -
Yedidyah Bar David