Mailing-List: contact cloudstack-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Murali.Reddy@citrix.com
 designates 203.166.19.134 as permitted sender)
From: Murali Reddy <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>
To: "cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org"
	<cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 12:33:25 +0530
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
Thread-Index: Ac3uN22S8yiHPo99RWmZEnpEMIiuKw==
Message-ID: <CD131340.2B3FE%murali.reddy@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <64FB1554ABC9B44FAA773FBD6CB889C20109387265B9@BANPMAILBOX01.citrite.net>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.5.121010
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

On 08/01/13 2:35 PM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.shetty@citrix.com> wrote:

>In the FS I have proposed we use the 'persistent' flag with the API's. I
>have added this item under 'Open Issues' for now. Will update the FS
>based on the discussion in this list.
>
>Since a network offering is used by an admin to define the feature set
>for guest networks, now I do think it makes more sense to have the flag
>in the network offering.
>All the default network offerings can have this feature disabled. To
>create a new persistent network a user can use a network offering
>provided by the admin. And to make an existing network persistent, user
>can update the network offering.
>
>Comments?

Having the flag in network offering is right way to go. Otherwise, all
users will potentially opt to create persistent networks only if the flag
is enabled through createNetwork API.

Also in FS, please capture the changes that are required in 'Network GC'
to relax cleaning up persistent networks when no VM is using the network.

>
>Thank you,
>Likitha
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 12:35 PM
>> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
>> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
>>=20
>> We had a discussion on moving the 'persistent' flag to the network
>>offering?
>>=20
>> On 1/7/13 3:38 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.shetty@citrix.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> >Created the first draft of the Functional spec -
>> >https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+-+Persistent+
>> >Net
>> >works.
>> >Will keep updating it based on the feedback.
>> >
>> >Thank you,
>> >Likitha
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.shah@citrix.com]
>> >> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10:26 PM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
>> >>
>> >> Chiradeep, Likitha,
>> >>
>> >> My take is that we need to support both kinds of networks (persistent
>> >>as well as  non-persistent). Also, I don't think we can have this as a
>> >>zone-wide behavior  because not all networks in a zone would need to
>> >>be persistent.
>> >>
>> >> For example, if you are deploying a multi-tier application, you might
>> >>only want  the DB tier to be persistent.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >> Manan Shah
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 1/3/13 11:31 PM, "Ram Ganesh" <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Does it make sense to introduce the flag(persistent) as part of
>> >> >NetworkOffering?
>> >> >
>> >> >Thanks,
>> >> >RamG
>> >> >
>> >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> From: Likitha Shetty [mailto:likitha.shetty@citrix.com]
>> >> >> Sent: 03 January 2013 18:05
>> >> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Please find my answers and queries inline.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thank you,
>> >> >> Likitha
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
>> >> >> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:03 PM
>> >> >> > To: CloudStack DeveloperList
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So:
>> >> >> > 1. There needs to be both kinds of networks available
>> >> >> > (persistent as
>> >> >> well as non-
>> >> >> > persistent) in the same zone?
>> >> >> Yes
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > From an end-user perspective this is going to be confusing since
>> >> >> > she
>> >> >> has not
>> >> >> > been exposed to this internal state before (and generally the
>> >> >> > end-
>> >> >> user is not
>> >> >> > aware of the internal state of the infrastructure).
>> >> >> +1. Say we have a new API 'ProvisionNetwork' to provision a
>> >> >> +network
>> >> >> that has been created by the user. Since the user is not aware of
>> >> >> the internal state of a network it would be confusing for the user
>> >> >> to understand the difference b/w the 2 API's, CreateNetwork and
>> >> >> ProvisionNetwork.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Is it OK to make this behavior
>> >> >> > zone-wide, I.e., on every guest network?
>> >> >> But this would mean having all networks (in the zone which has
>> >> >> this behavior enabled) in an implemented state, even if a network
>> >> >> has no physical device or VM deployed in it. This is changing the
>> >> >> default CS behavior of not having resources allocated to a network
>> >> >> if the network doesn't require it. Is that acceptable ?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On 12/31/12 10:19 AM, "Manan Shah" <manan.shah@citrix.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >Thanks Likitha for picking up this requirement. You have
>> >> >> > >correctly interpreted the requirements.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >Regards,
>> >> >> > >Manan Shah
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >On 12/31/12 2:52 AM, "Likitha Shetty"
>> >> >> > ><likitha.shetty@citrix.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >>Hi,
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>I would like to work on the proposed feature.
>> >> >> > >>Restating the requirement. Currently in CloudStack when a user
>> >> >> creates
>> >> >> > >>a network, a db entry for that network is made, a VLAN ID is
>> >> >> assigned
>> >> >> > >>and the network is created only when the first VM on that
>> >> >> > >>network
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> > created.
>> >> >> > >>With this feature CloudStack should allow users to provision
>> >> >> > >>the created network i.e. assign a VLAN ID and implement the
>> >> >> > >>network without having to deploy VM's on that network.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>Comments/Suggestions on the requirement ?
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>Thank you,
>> >> >> > >>Likitha
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>-----Original Message-----
>> >> >> > >>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.shah@citrix.com]
>> >> >> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:01 AM
>> >> >> > >>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> >> > >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>Hi,
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>I would like to propose a new feature for persistent networks
>> >> >> without
>> >> >> > >>running VMs. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided the
>> >> >> > >>requirements at the following location.  Please provide
>> >> >> > >>feedback on
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> > requirements.
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>JIRA Ticket:
>> >> >> > >>https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-706
>> >> >> > >>Requirements:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Persisten
>> >> >> >>t+N
>> >> >> >>et
>> >> >> w
>> >> >> > >>ork
>> >> >> > >>s
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >>Regards,
>> >> >> > >>Manan Shah
>> >> >> > >>
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >
>
>