7:39 p.m.
On 16.09.2014 16:20, Antoni Segura Puimedon wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Daniel Helgenberger" <daniel.helgenberger(a)m-box.de>
> To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>, "Livnat Peer"
<lpeer(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 5:17:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [RFI] oVirt 3.6 Planning
>
>
> On 15.09.2014 15:23, Itamar Heim wrote:
>> On 09/15/2014 04:10 PM, Daniel Helgenberger wrote:
>>> Hello Livnat,
>>> On 15.09.2014 14:46, Livnat Peer wrote:
>>>> On 09/15/2014 03:15 PM, Daniel Helgenberger wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>> +1 for the iso uploader,
>>>>> +1 for hostusb in UI
>>>>> +1 EL 7 (on the roadmap anyway?)
>>>>>
>>>>> With hostusb some more host-dev virtualization could be added. Top of
my
>>>>> list is:
>>>>> - SR-IOV
>>>>> - NPV
>>>>> - VFIO
>>>>>
>>>>> These things could be handled on cluster level - hypervisors need to
>>>>> have the same hardware configuration anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also, I think its time to add official support for OpenVswitch?
>>>>>
>>>> Are you looking for a specific functionality that is available via
>>>> OpenVswitch (=OVS)?
>>>> also we have the Neutron integration where we use OVS.
>>> I think its sufficient to say OVS is a 'real' modern switch while
plain
>>> ol' linux bridge is not (so much any more). Of curse, maybe implementing
>>> other things like macvtap and / or SR-IOV achieves just the same thing
>>> (at least for me, as I then mange vlans/trunks and QoS, Spanning Tree
>>> ect. on my switches).
>>>
>>> I know you can point on OpenStack integration because you get those
>>> features for 'free' (see Ceph). But what about users like me who do
not
>>> wish / can / should implement the whole OpenStack but rather want to run
>>> 'plain' oVirt?
>> that's why we added in 3.5 a standalone, pre-configured, neutron virtual
>> appliance so you won't need "all of openstack"?
> Witch is certainly nice to have. But this is not the point. IMHO storage
> and networking are core functions for a virtualization platform. And
> such a platform will need to reflect the the progress made in general
> and in particular by the hypervisor monitor (libvirt).
> I am no developer and can hardly estimate the coding effort and do not
> want you to redo already working things. But at least in case of Ceph
> there is the API from libvirt, this is true for all the other things I
> mentioned, in my naive view they are all variations of the hostusb hook.
> Certainly I can deploy OVS myself and manage it from CLI, witch is what
> I do now.
> Could you share how you set it up, i.e., how you map networks to ovs
> and everything that you configure? Depending on the size, making a
> vdsm configurator for it would not be that difficult (and the fine
> tunning could come with hooks).
Hello Antoni,
I see this was very misleading, sorry. With the phrase 'witch is what
I do now' I literally meant 'right now' witch is not (yet) oVirt/vdsm
but plain libvirt / virsh / virt-manager.
Since libvirt supports OVS directly; I just use <virtualport
type='openvswitch'/> in my network xml; then define VLANs and QoS with
ovs-vsctl cli. So I am used to OVS management and the flexibility it
offers.
I was also trying to mangle things in oVirt - but I could not get OVS to
work with oVirt managed bridges and gave up (since I cannot use such
'hacks' in production environments, company and my own policy).
Thanks!
PS: I hope I made myself clear in my last mails, OVS is not the 'killer'
feature witch decides whatever I deploy oVirt or not. Linux bridge and
libvirt network QoS are well tested. But I will surely miss some things
later on I cannot do directly. What I do with it and what I use it
currently for - please refer to my mail to Livnat.
> But in the end, I would very much like to do this via one integrated
> GUI, this is why I deploy oVirt (witch I see as a open source
> counterpart to EXi. Esp. the concept of one engine for management - but
> not critical for running my VMs.)
> Please allow me a 'heretic' question, will oVirt make itself obsoleted
> in the future because all of the core functionality is moved to an
> external provider? Is it better for my use case (small/medium business
> and not in the telco sector) to deploy OpenStack in the first place and
> not to use oVirt at all? ATM OpenStack seems to me like the literal
> sledgehammer to crack a nut.
>
> Thanks,
>
<http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/to+take+a+sledgehammer+to+crack+a+nut...
>
>>> I think this might not be a desirable way to add / modernize features as
>>> it creates a huge overhead (at least in my use case, medium business. I
>>> did this once for Glance 'just' to get a way to more easily handle
>>> import / export of image files, now I need to implement Neutron
'just'
>>> to get OVS?).
>>>
>>> Don't get me wrong - OpenStack integration is a wonderful thing witch
>>> leaves room for expansion - later on.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12.09.2014 14:23, Itamar Heim wrote:
>>>>>> With oVirt 3.5 nearing GA, time to ask for "what do you want
to see in
>>>>>> oVirt 3.6"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Itamar
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>
> --
> Daniel Helgenberger
> m box bewegtbild GmbH
>
> P: +49/30/2408781-22
> F: +49/30/2408781-10
>
> ACKERSTR. 19
> D-10115 BERLIN
>
>
> www.m-box.de www.monkeymen.tv
>
> Geschäftsführer: Martin Retschitzegger / Michaela Göllner
> Handeslregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg / HRB 112767
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
--
Daniel Helgenberger
m box bewegtbild GmbH
P: +49/30/2408781-22
F: +49/30/2408781-10
ACKERSTR. 19
D-10115 BERLIN
www.m-box.de www.monkeymen.tv
Geschäftsführer: Martin Retschitzegger / Michaela Göllner
Handeslregister: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg / HRB 112767