cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Darren Shepherd <>
Subject Re: [MERGE] network-guru-orchestration into master
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:08:38 GMT
I definitely don't want the setup to be done at a zone level.
Specifically, I'd like to get rid of the notion of basic and advanced
zones which would mean that you could be mixing gurus in the same
zone.  If anything, I'd say the simplest would be to just specify the
Guru in the network offering.

I like the work that Hugo has done, but the implications of that
change are 2 things.  First, we only want one guru to match.  If that
is the case, then lets change the NetworkOrchestrator.setupNetwork()
to just return one network.  I have a hard time understanding why you
would want to return two or more.  Even if the guru created two
networks internally, only one should be return to the caller.  There's
not a good way to invoke setupNetwork() and handle cases where more
than one network comes back.

Second, we are saying the only way to choose a guru is based on
networkType/trafficType/guestType/isolationmethods.  I think the core
logic should be more flexible than that.  We can first check those 4
items, and then if we find more than one guru that matches, use the
best one (before what I said about adding canHandle to the interface).
 But the check shouldn't be only those four criteria.  Hugo's change
does not strictly enforce that, but it is essentially implied.

After saying all that, if we just put the Guru in the network
offering.  Would that work for everything?  That would be a really
simple and explicit way to configure this all.


On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:31 AM, Alex Huang <> wrote:
> I agree with Hugo that the current way of ask NetworkGuru to decide itself is not desirable.
 It makes absolute sense to change that but I wonder why do it through capabilities.  Why
not just ask the system admin to choose when they setup the zone?   When I originally designed
NetworkGuru, I figured there's a difference in the L2-L3 technology deployed and the network
services (L4-L7) provided on top of it.  So I separated out NetworkGuru and NetworkElement.
 However, I didn't think it's likely that there would be two or three different type of L2-L3
technologies deployed within the same zone.  I figured we can leave it to the system admin
to just pick which set of NetworkGurus should be deployed in a certain zone and that's good
> I do think there should be more tie in between the NetworkElements and NetworkGurus.
 For example, whether a certain NetworkElement can work with the L2-L3 technology deployed.
> --Alex
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Darren Shepherd []
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2013 10:11 AM
>> To:; Alex Huang; Chiradeep Vittal
>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] network-guru-orchestration into master
>> I don't particular like saying that picking a Guru is based solely on that criteria.
>> It should be much looser than that.  If the problem you are trying to fix is two
>> Gurus implement the same network then we need to set back a bit.  I'd like
>> Alex or Chiradeep to weigh in on this.  Currently setupNetwork returns a list
>> of networks that were created.  I've looked at the code and every single
>> invocation to setupNetwork expects (and mostly hard code) a response of
>> one network.
>> So for a more proper fix I'd say that the API of setupNetwork should just
>> return Network.  Additionally NetworkGuru should have a
>> canHandle/canDesign method on the interface that returns a priority/score
>> (similar to what was just done in the storage strategies).  Then the
>> orchestrator can find the best match and then use the correct guru.  Now the
>> consolidated logic that you've done should be in a abstract base class that
>> handles the basic cases of traffic type, network type, etc.
>> Darren
>> On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 6:10 AM, Hugo Trippaers <> wrote:
>> >
>> > On 30 okt. 2013, at 02:09, Darren Shepherd <>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> First, I like the idea of consolidating logic.  I could see also
>> >> implementing this as just an abstract base class that handles this
>> >> common logic.  I'm not sure which approach I prefer.  Exactly what is
>> >> the problem that you are trying to solve?  Without more details, I'd
>> >> lean towards implementing this logic in an abstract base class that
>> >> all NetworkGurus can choose to extend.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Not as much a problem as a design choice. It is my intention to use
>> > capabilities to select the NetworkGuru instead of asking each network
>> > guru in turn if it wants to design the network. The idea here is that
>> > new network gurus only need to supply a list of capabilities to be
>> > integrated into cloudstack. Like i can handle isolation type X in
>> > advanced networks for traffic type Guest. The network orchestrator can
>> > make an informed decision on who to give the task (and warn if there
>> > is more than one capable)
>> >
>> >
>> >> Darren
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Hugo Trippaers <>
>> wrote:
>> >>> Hey guys,
>> >>>
>> >>> This is something i had on my wish list for some time. The current way
>> network gurus are handled is that each guru is asked to design a network and
>> will decide by itself to either do it or don't. Most gurus have sane checks on
>> which types of networks it can handle, but we have seen issues there in the
>> past.
>> >>>
>> >>> With these changes the network orchestrator will check the capabilities
>> of a guru and based on that ask one or more gurus to design the network.
>> With this the power is where is should new, the network orchestrator.
>> >>>
>> >>> This also means that new networking plugins with gurus will have an
>> easier integration, just list the capabilities. It will also save some database
>> calls (once i clean out all canHandle functions) as gurus will have to lookup
>> less to decide if they should to their job.
>> >>>
>> >>> What do you guys think?
>> >>>
>> >>> Current branch is tested with devcloud in a manual test, so there is
>> work to do there. I wanted to get some opinions while performing more
>> tests.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers,
>> >>>
>> >>> Hugo
>> >

View raw message