Hey, We're trying to come up with a way to deploy OVN provider's firewalld services during engine setup. The naive solution of querying the user during customization and then installing during STAGE_PACKAGES fails as firewalld configuration happens prior to it. We thought of a couple of possible solutions we'd like your opinions on (ordered in perceived level of difficulty): 1) Ship/require the packages with ovirt-engine without requiring user input. This essentially couples engine with OVN and disregards a future where OVN doesn't run alongside Engine.

2) Install the packages immediately following user input during customization. A bit hacky and doesn't conceptually fit the stage of customization. 3) Move user input to STAGE_INTERNAL_PACKAGES. Feels more disruptive than #1 to the current otopi flow as STAGE_INTERNAL_PACKAGES is dedicated for packages that are required for otopi itself to operate. Not only this doesn't fit conceptually, it introduces user input to a stage that shouldn't have any. 4) Move firewalld configuration to happen after STAGE_PACKAGES.

5) Refactor to prepare the grounds for OVN/Engine separation. At this point this feels very ambiguous. We don't yet know how will containers be accessed (is ssh guaranteed?) in the future or generally how should a remote installation look like.

Any input/questions are appreciated. Thanks, Leon

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. And even if we don't support OVN on different host in 4.2, we can prepare for the future ... Martin On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 7:36 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 5:50 PM, Leon Goldberg <lgoldber(a)redhat.com&gt; > wrote: > > Hey, > > > > We're trying to come up with a way to deploy OVN provider's firewalld > > services during engine setup. The naive solution of querying the user > during > > customization and then installing during STAGE_PACKAGES fails as > firewalld > > configuration happens prior to it. > > > > We thought of a couple of possible solutions we'd like your opinions on > > (ordered in perceived level of difficulty): > > > > 1) Ship/require the packages with ovirt-engine without requiring user > input. > > This essentially couples engine with OVN and disregards a future where > OVN > > doesn't run alongside Engine. > > How much space will this add? RPMs/Installed-size? > > This is also what we do today with dwh. It can run in the engine machine > or > on a different one, but the engine still (indirectly) requires it. So it's > always shipped, and if user chooses to not configure it, it still takes > space, and user has to set it up elsewhere. > > > > > 2) Install the packages immediately following user input during > > customization. A bit hacky and doesn't conceptually fit the stage of > > customization. > > > > 3) Move user input to STAGE_INTERNAL_PACKAGES. Feels more disruptive > than #1 > > to the current otopi flow as STAGE_INTERNAL_PACKAGES is dedicated for > > packages that are required for otopi itself to operate. Not only this > > doesn't fit conceptually, it introduces user input to a stage that > shouldn't > > have any. > > > > 4) Move firewalld configuration to happen after STAGE_PACKAGES. > > This is a rather big change to how things are done, and breaks iptables > support. If we want to keep iptables support, and allow prompting the user > with the changes that will be done to iptables [1], we must know > beforehand > which ports will need to be opened, so we need the firewalld service files > during customization. > > Thinking about this, another option is to package the service files > separately (in ovn itself, one day, or in the provider, for now) - > and require by the engine only this sub-package, which should be tiny > and have no dependencies (except for firewalld perhaps). > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1109326 > > > > > 5) Refactor to prepare the grounds for OVN/Engine separation. At this > point > > this feels very ambiguous. We don't yet know how will containers be > accessed > > (is ssh guaranteed?) in the future or generally how should a remote > > installation look like. > > Agreed. While "this is the future", I do not think we can do anything > worthy > for 4.2. > > Best, > > > > > Any input/questions are appreciated. > > > > Thanks, > > Leon > > > > -- > Didi > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel(a)ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

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.

[1] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/message:ovn+project:ovirt- engine+message:packaging+status:merged _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

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?

Dan. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

(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'.