cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: why are RvR routers not HA
Date Thu, 10 Oct 2013 03:19:45 GMT
The main thing that came to mind was the limitation on VPC where only one
network can have public load balancing. I looked into it a bit, and its
because the information is passed to the system vm in such a way that a
second LB config would completely overwrite previous configs. I was able to
get around it by modifying the system vm side script to treat incoming
information as additive/differential rather than starting from scratch,
then disabling the checks in the mgmt server that block this. I wasn't
satisfied with that as a solution for master, it seemed like the Command
should be rewritten to handle multiple network haproxy configs.

On the haproxy note, it would be nice if it could do SSL termination. Its
mainly just a matter of storing the cert and passing it along in the
Command.
On Oct 9, 2013 8:57 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well, here's the deal.  I'm doing analysis right now to completely
> revamp the management of systemvm.  Basically get to a faster, more
> reliable, more transparent way of doing things with far, far, far less
> code.  I'm planning on putting a thread up for discussion in about a
> week.  I want to have a relatively complete picture of how I think I
> can do this in order to not scare the crap out of everyone.  (Just a
> preview, this will be implemented as a "new" thing/provider, won't
> disrupt the current implementation).  Then I'll be working on it for
> about the next couple months I assume.  I have preemptively put in a
> talk at CCC about this too, even though I know I haven't started the
> discussions with the community.
>
> I've done VRRP orchestration of VMs in the past.  I was able to do HA
> w/ VRRP.  So while I don't know the specific technical issues that
> made it difficult to do HA in the current impl, I know it is possible.
>  So... we'll see.
>
> I'm sure you want this fixed now and I'm not going to fix this in the
> current impl.  Knowing how the current RvR code works today, I can see
> how the current implementation would make it quite difficult to do
> correctly.  But yeah, I'm taking requests.  Anything you don't like
> about the VRs, system VMs, etc.  Let me know.  You want it to make
> coffee and julienne fries, I'll see what we can do.  We'll add
> raspberry pi integration :)
>
> Darren
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Ooh, do you take requests?
> > On Oct 9, 2013 7:30 PM, "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I didn't read the whole thread yet, but at the end of the day it's
> sounds
> >> like an implementation issue.  So I'll just naively say I'll fix that :)
> >>
> >> Darren
> >>
> >> > On Oct 9, 2013, at 5:58 PM, Alena Prokharchyk <
> >> Alena.Prokharchyk@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > HA redundant virtual router
> >>
>

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