5:36 a.m.
On 12/27/2012 03:48 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
...
On the other hand, we need to define the management network when a
host
is added to the setup, and nagging for confirmation for each of them may
lead us to the blind baboon acking syndrome.
Since I'd like to normalize the way ovirtmgmt is created, and make it
more like other networks, I've written up
http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Normalized_ovirtmgmt_Initialization
If the Add Host dialog had a checkbox saying "define ovirtmgmt network
automatically", would it satisfy you? (any other comment to that feature
page is welcome).
1. in general, I like it. iiuc, you don't really need the management
network for normal work (engine would connect to host by its fqdn/ip by
default). if you do want to set a vlan/bond/SLA/roles/etc - then you
just configure it.
2. need to see how to preserve backward compatibility - i.e., bootstrap
will probably need to handle this for older engines.
3. iirc, in ovirt-node the bridge is created prior to bootstrap, which
wouldn't be needed any more.
Itamar
1:56 a.m.
New subject: [Users] Network reconfiguration in ovirt 3.1
On Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:36:04 +0200
Itamar Heim <iheim(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 12/27/2012 03:48 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
...
> http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Normalized_ovirtmgmt_Initialization
I was reading about QinQ yesterday and discovered it is one
of featurse that the project would like to see in oVirt.
Now I'm curious, as NetworkManager has been around for couple of
years and still it is not finished, why oVirt want to depend
of this tool?
Wouldn't be better to use libvirt networking features for
portability as well and/or talk to libvirt devs to implement
features which you would like to see?
jbelka
3:37 a.m.
New subject: [Users] Network reconfiguration in ovirt 3.1
On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 01:36:04PM +0200, Itamar Heim wrote:
On 12/27/2012 03:48 PM, Dan Kenigsberg wrote:
...
>On the other hand, we need to define the management network when a host
>is added to the setup, and nagging for confirmation for each of them may
>lead us to the blind baboon acking syndrome.
>
>Since I'd like to normalize the way ovirtmgmt is created, and make it
>more like other networks, I've written up
>http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Normalized_ovirtmgmt_Initialization
>
>If the Add Host dialog had a checkbox saying "define ovirtmgmt network
>automatically", would it satisfy you? (any other comment to that feature
>page is welcome).
1. in general, I like it. iiuc, you don't really need the management
network for normal work (engine would connect to host by its fqdn/ip
by default). if you do want to set a vlan/bond/SLA/roles/etc - then
you just configure it.
Who is "you" in "you just configure it"?
Currently we let Engine configure all about ovirtmgmt (though persisting
it afterwards may require out-of-band involvment). Do you suggest that
we should drop this completely?
The management network *is* the persistent configuration required for
Engine/Vdsm connectivity. We have to persist vlan id, ip address, mtu,
bonding options, nic identity and probably other stuff. This "stuff" is
aggregated into the "management network" concept. Even if we loose
ovirtmgmt, I'd expect that we'd have to continue managing the "stuff"
behind it.
2. need to see how to preserve backward compatibility - i.e.,
bootstrap will probably need to handle this for older engines.
older engine would continue to use the old initialization process,
which includes passing VDSM/managementBridgeName = ovirtmgmt to otopi
(or use vds_bootsrap). Nothing changes in that front.
3. iirc, in ovirt-node the bridge is created prior to bootstrap,
which wouldn't be needed any more.
Yes, this is another place where we could normalize the process.
Dan.
4274
days inactive
4275
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Dan Kenigsberg -
Itamar Heim -
Jiri Belka