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: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:25:17 +0530
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) FS & Design
 Document
Thread-Topic: [DISCUSS] Global Server Load Balancing (GSLB) FS & Design
 Document
Thread-Index: Ac3zFzHIL8IdwOxQTnu4JpTNvHHrBQ==
Message-ID: <CD1B3D74.2C4F2%murali.reddy@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <CD15A558.2BBD2%murali.reddy@citrix.com>
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

I have update the FS [1] as per the review comments. Changes done are
included in document history section.

I would like to seek comments on one change added in FS. In CloudStak, at
present there are no operations that require orchestration across zones.
GSLB and EIP across zones [2] are two immediate features that require
cross-zone orchestration. I would like to introduce notion of 'region'
level services and corresponding service provider in to CloudStack. Please
share your thoughts.

[1]=20
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/GSLB+(Global+Server+
Load+Balancing)+Functional+specification+and+Design+Document

[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-652


On 11/01/13 2:32 PM, "Murali Reddy" <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com> wrote:

>On 11/01/13 2:55 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the detailed and enlightening write-up*.
>>
>>I feel that the GSLB service is not a NetworkElement.
>>NetworkElements are those that participate in the L2/L3 orchestration of
>>VMs.
>>GSLB providers do not do this.
>
>Thanks for the review Chiradeep. Sure, GSLB service, is indeed cross-zone
>service, does not fit in to NetWorkElement model. I will by-pass using
>NetWorkElement, and let GSLB orchestration send commands directly to agent
>representing the GSLB provider.
>
>>
>>It does not even participate in the existing Loadbalancer workflow.
>>
>>In fact I would assert that this is a completely different higher-level
>>orchestration workflow that should not need to touch network elements or
>>the network manager.
>>You could even write this feature by orchestrating it using the end-user
>>APIs.
>
>Agreed. GSLB orchestration need not be part of network manager, I will
>restrict it to service layer.
>
>I will update the spec and get back.
>
>>
>>
>>*A lot of folks strive to format the document according to the template
>>but the template is just to make sure that vital information is not
>>missed. What ends up happening is that there's a lot of information, but
>>incoherently organized. Nice job.
>>
>>
>>On 1/8/13 12:52 PM, "Murali Reddy" <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In continuation to my proposal [1], I am brining GSLB support
>>>separately for discussion. I have put up functional specification and
>>>design documentation at [2]. Please provide feedback, comments.
>>>
>>>Quick abstract of the feature:
>>>
>>>Today CloudStack supports load balancing traffic across the VM instances
>>>with in a zone. In case of multi-zone clouds, users can launch service
>>>across one or more zones for high availability and disaster recovery.
>>>GSLB
>>>is set of technologies that are used to load balance traffic across
>>>multiple location and also provides disaster recovery. With this feature
>>>CloudStack would be able to orchestrate setting up load balancing across
>>>multiple zones and also provide disaster recovery solution in case of
>>>multiple zone clouds.
>>>
>>>
>>>[1] http://markmail.org/message/lx6tyikvmvd6wix4
>>>
>>>[2]https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/GSLB+%28Global
>>>+
>>>S
>>>e
>>>rver+Load+Balancing%29+Functional+specification+and+Design+Document
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>