On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
(Re-opening an old thread)
On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken(a)redhat.com>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina
>>>> > Will OVN provider be mandatory for all engine 4.2 installation? Can
>>>> > provider be installed on different host than engine? If not
>>>> > "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
>>>> > 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
>>>> When looked from this perspective, adding an explicit rpm-level
>>>> Requires, does not make things much worse, it only makes reality
>>>> > 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. 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
>> 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.
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.