[ovirt-devel] ovirt-provider-ovn - appliance inclusion / default enablement

[Simone Tiraboschi]

On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 12:23 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 6:56 PM, Sandro Bonazzola <
> sbonazzo at 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...
>
>
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=
> 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:
> >>
> >> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/gitweb?p=ovirt-hosted-engine-
> 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:
> >>
> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270719
>
>
>
> --
> Didi
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170518/30c9db1c/attachment.html>