[ovirt-devel] OVN provider's firewalld services deployment during engine setup

[Dan Kenigsberg]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:
> (Re-opening an old thread)
>
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <didi at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Yaniv Kaul <ykaul at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina <mperina at redhat.com>
>>>>> 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'.

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.