cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue between network plugins and hypervisors
Date Sat, 27 Jul 2013 11:05:50 GMT
H,

isn't it the responsibility of the administrator to setup the cloud in a
proper way? hypervisor and network implementations may enhance their
capabilities at minor upgrades so it will not be easy to keep checks on
this up to date in cloudstack. Am I missing the point here?

regards,
Daan


On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Toshiaki Hatano
<toshiaki.hatano@verio.net>wrote:

> I agree with Murali.
>
> I feel NetworkGuru should know their capability and should called when we
> add cluster.
> NetworkGurus already provide canHandle(NetworkOffering, NetworkType,
> PhysicalNetwork) method to check their capability.
> So, how about overloading this method to get HypervisorType in arguments?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Toshiaki
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murali Reddy [mailto:Murali.Reddy@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 22:33
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue between network plugins and
> hypervisors
>
> Also, should not we treat 'isolation' as Network Element capability rather
> than Hypervisor. Tunnelling capability could be a Hypervisor capability,
> but isolation (STT/GRE) is Network Element capability? So,zone isolation
> -> isolation provider -> supported hypervisors should be checked against
> add cluster IMO.
>
> On 26/07/13 9:24 AM, "Chiradeep Vittal" <Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com>
> wrote:
>
> >+1 (with a caveat), good idea since isolation method is supported on a
> >per-zone basis.
> >The caveat is that sometimes it makes sense to support multiple
> >isolation methods in a zone.
> >For example, VPC(advanced) + basic in the same zone.
> >Why would one do this? Simply because someone might start with one
> >isolation method (basic) and then offer advanced (using overlays like
> >VxLAN f.e). Since templates/snapshots/volumes tend to be zone-specific,
> >this makes the transition easier.
> >This is not unlike AWS "EC2-classic" and "VPC" in the same zone.
> >
> >
> >On 7/26/13 3:34 AM, "Alex Huang" <Alex.Huang@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> >>+1
> >>
> >>I think we should take advantage of hypervisor capabilities to look
> >>for that compatibility.
> >>
> >>--Alex
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Toshiaki Hatano [mailto:toshiaki.hatano@verio.net]
> >>> Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:01 PM
> >>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >>> Subject: [DISCUSS] Compatibility issue between network plugins and
> >>> hypervisors
> >>>
> >>> Hi devs,
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> CloudStack supports many hypervisors and many network isolation
> >>>methods.
> >>>
> >>> Some isolation method doesn't (or cannot) support some hypervisors,
> >>>
> >>> but it looks cloudstack doesn't check compatibility between network
> >>>isolation  and hypervisors.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Why don't we check it during addCluster, first timing cloudstack-
> >>>management know isolation and hypervisor, and fail if it's
> >>>incompatible?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Best Regards,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>>
> >>> Toshiaki Hatano
> >>>
> >>> Verio, an NTT Communications company
> >>> E-mail:  toshiaki.hatano@verio.net
> >>> <mailto:toshiaki.hatano@verio.net>
> >>>
> >>> AIM:      toshiaki.hatano@verio.net <mailto:toshiaki.hatano@verio.net>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This email message is intended for the use of the person to whom it
> >>>has  been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or
> >>>legally  protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have
> >>>received this  message in error, you are not authorized to copy,
> >>>distribute, or otherwise  use this message or its attachments. Please
> >>>notify the sender immediately by  return e-mail and permanently
> >>>delete this message and any attachments.
> >>> Verio Inc. makes no warranty that this email is error or virus free.
> >>>Thank you.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> This email message is intended for the use of the person to whom it has
> been sent, and may contain information that is confidential or legally
> protected. If you are not the intended recipient or have received this
> message in error, you are not authorized to copy, distribute, or otherwise
> use this message or its attachments. Please notify the sender immediately
> by return e-mail and permanently delete this message and any attachments.
> Verio Inc. makes no warranty that this email is error or virus free.  Thank
> you.
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message