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: Working on CloudStack Jira-764:nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC email 2 of 2
Date Mon, 03 Feb 2014 19:03:28 GMT

On 03 Feb 2014, at 19:45, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> 
>> On 03 Feb 2014, at 18:03, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> After discussion with my colleagues  questions about initial
>>> configuration of the open network redundant routers and the
>>> applicability of the existing bash scripts (cloud-early-config) to the
>>> setup of VPC redundant routers have generated.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Some setup first: In the bash script cloud-early-config there is a
>>> function named setup_redundant_router which makes copies of several
>>> template files. The template files are used to configure keepalived
>>> and conntrackd. The template copies are edited, via sed editor, using
>>> environment variables ($ROUTER_PR, $ETH0_IP,$NAME, etc.)  which are
>>> obtained from the kernel of the current running linux image using the
>>> virtual file system /proc/cmdline.
>>> 
>>> I'm sure keepalived and conntrackd  can be used for starting and
>>> control of VPC redundant routers. However the setup of keepalived and
>>> conntrackd for VPC needs setup parameters which are dynamic because a
>>> VPC can have N number of redundant router pairs, not just the fixed
>>> number parsed from proc/cmdline in the running kernel.
>>> 
>>> Am I correct in this analysis?
>> Karl, I think not. There is only one router in a vac, it routes for all
>> networks in the virtual private cloud. Am I misreading your description.
> 
> Ok then a VPC should contain a single router containing N+1 (N+2 if using a
> VPN connection) nic's? Where N is the number of private networks.
And I would like to see N+3 as it will allocate another when a private gateway is defined.
That is why I proposed to pre-allocate this nic to be able to predict mic-ids, i.e. eth<#>.

> 
> If so then my original question still holds in the sense that the nic's
> need to be created in the VM kernel based on the number of private networks
> desired?

Yes

> I found the method update_System_Vm_Templates in the jar file
> Upgrade410to420 in cloud-engine-schema/src/com/cloud/upgrade/dao which
> seems to point to a set of pre-configured VM images.
I can not find the method you describe but these preconfigured images are the ones used for
all the system vms. That would be secondary storage vms, console proxy vms and indeed the
router vms. 

> 
>> 
>>> If so, given the dynamic nature of the VPC redundant router
>>> configurations: Is using a setup_VPC_redundant_router bash function,
>>> similar to the existing open network function mentioned above, the
>>> most appropriate way to setup the keepalived or conntrackd
>>> configuration files for VPC redundant routers in the
>>> cloud-early-script? It seems to me reading the parameters from the
>>> kernel will require a unwieldy set of kernels to match the N private
>>> network redundant router pairs configured by the enduser.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Comments, questions, clarifications?
>> 
>>> 
>>> Karl
>>> 
>>> 
>>> In the bash script ea
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> good reason to skip it for a next version, let's look into it anyway,
>>>> as we don't want to burn any of our ships.
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com>
>> wrote:
>>>>> All,
>>>>> 
>>>>> At first redundant DHCP seemed like a good idea. I did some cursory
>>>>> research and the more I read the more I'm convinced it may be
>>>>> more trouble than its worth for the first implementation. I'll talk
>>>>> with some of our Systems Engineer's here and get a broader
>>>>> perspective.
>>>>> 
>>>>> There seems to be only a single implementation of an open source DHCP
>>>>> server that will handle the synchronization required for redundant
>>>>> servers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Karl
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:47 PM, Daan Hoogland <
>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Saurav,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Not sure how this happens now, but it is definateluy something we
>>>>>> want. For the static conf files it won't be much of a problem. The
>>>>>> firewall/loadbalences won't be much of a problem, they are fire and
>>>>>> forget configurations of the ms that can just be sent to both. The
>>>>>> dhcp is a challange. I am not sure if it is solved for the plain
rvr
>>>>>> now but it should be solved for that as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Saurav Lahiri
>>>>>> <saurav.lahiri@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Daan,
>>>>>>> I was wondering if you had not shared your thoughts, but looks
like
>> I had
>>>>>>> missed your mail.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree that redundant dhcp or dns would be good to have. What
I
>> meant was,
>>>>>>> it appears that by  just enabling RVR   there is no way to auto
sync
>>>>>>> configuration between the  master and slave nodes with regard
to
>> dhcp,
>>>>>>> loadbalancer and firewall(specifically the dhcp lease file,
>> haproxy,cfg and
>>>>>>> iptables configuration).  So just enabling RVR does not ensure
high
>>>>>>> availability for  these services. Is there a way cloudstack autosyncs
>>>>>>> configuration?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For the routing portion this is not an issue as the participating
>> routers
>>>>>>> learn the route through known protocols.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Saurav
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 2:37 AM, Daan Hoogland <
>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Saurav, I don't see why you can't benefit from having other
services
>>>>>>>> redundant as well. Vpn might be a problem as the source ip
of a
>>>>>>>> redundant router pair on a vpn might give a problem (maybe
there is
>> an
>>>>>>>> implementation) but why wouldn't you want redundant dhcp
or dns
>>>>>>>> services? As I understand it these are used at Schuberg Philis
at
>> the
>>>>>>>> moment. will double check when I get a chance.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>>> Daan
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Saurav Lahiri
>>>>>>>> <saurav.lahiri@sungard.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Daan,
>>>>>>>>> So looking at what is available today for guest network,
the
>> Redundant VR
>>>>>>>>> can be enabled only for the source nat service. I guess
the
>> mention of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> source nat router is in relation to that. I could be
wrong though.
>> It
>>>>>>>>> appears  that the other services like vpn, dhcp, dns
do not
>> benefit much
>>>>>>>>> from the RVR capability. Can you clarify if thats correct?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>> Saurav
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 2:27 AM, Karl Harris <
>> karl.harris@sungard.com
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>>>>>> From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 2:51 PM
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: rvr4vpc
>>>>>>>>>> To: Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com>
>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Christopher Litsinger <christopher.litsinge@sungard.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> H Karl,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing. I didn't want to initiate this
but I
>> encourage you
>>>>>>>>>> to share this on the dev list (not in jira) as things
are only
>>>>>>>>>> considered 'discussed' if they passed by there.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> You speak of '1 Get configuration data on Source
Nat Router', I
>> don't
>>>>>>>>>> understand why you call the router by this designation.
'Source
>> Nat'
>>>>>>>>>> is only one of it's many possible functions.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Apart from the design principles I shared with you
I have so far
>> only
>>>>>>>>>> a technical implementation detail so far. That is
to reserve the
>>>>>>>>>> (eth2) interface for the private gateway on the vpc
(r)vr. This
>> way
>>>>>>>>>> the inteface to configure are somewhat predictable.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> As for the design principle to have a statefull router
(reboot
>> proof)
>>>>>>>>>> the idea is to implement a configuration file that
will be
>> uploaded to
>>>>>>>>>> the router after which a self-config command is send
that will
>>>>>>>>>> implement the details of configuring the interfaces,
haproxy and
>>>>>>>>>> keepalived and maybe more. I think your current assessment
of the
>>>>>>>>>> working of the RVRs is accurate but it will not be
workable for an
>>>>>>>>>> implementation for vpc's as they have an unpreditable
number of
>>>>>>>>>> interfaces.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> to bad you can't make it next thursday,
>>>>>>>>>> Daan Hoogland
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:25 PM, Karl Harris <
>> karl.harris@sungard.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Daan,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the delayed response but as Christopher
mentioned to
>> you in
>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>>>> email I am getting my head around the CloudStack
software.
>>>>>>>>>>> Since I am new to CloudStack but "old" to enterprise
level JAVA
>> the
>>>>>>>> task
>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> large but not impossible. I have no experience
with running
>> CloudStack
>>>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>>>>> considerable experience designing and maintaining
large JAVA
>>>>>>>>>> applications.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I've created what I believe is a very high level
abstract of how
>> the
>>>>>>>>>> current
>>>>>>>>>>> guest VRR's are created for guest networks with
the intent of
>> making
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> abstract
>>>>>>>>>>> more detailed.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 Get configuration data on Source Nat Router
 selected as a
>> redundant
>>>>>>>>>>> router
>>>>>>>>>>>  1.1 Public and Guest network identified.
>>>>>>>>>>> 2 Both routers are provisioned
>>>>>>>>>>>  2.1 Software  trys different,
>> regions(?),zones,pods,clusters,hosts
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>> that order as the location of the router. Log
maximum "distance"
>>>>>>>> apart.
>>>>>>>>>>> 3 Keepalived is configured
>>>>>>>>>>> 4 Both routers are started
>>>>>>>>>>> 5 Keepalived is started
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously there is much more that is happening
under each of the
>> steps
>>>>>>>>>>> above. My intent is to complete this detailed
"as is" listing as
>> much
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>> can. Then  using the "as is" description/sequence
>>>>>>>>>>> make a "to-be" addition for VPC's. When I get
a consensus on WHAT
>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> be implemented for the VRR in VPC  then develop
HOW best to
>> implement
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>> "to-be" addition with the
>>>>>>>>>>> existing JAVA code as well as what additional
classes need to be
>>>>>>>>>>> extended/implemented/created.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Comments, critiques and changes to the above
sequence are
>> encouraged.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I plan on posting this to the dev-list/Jira very
soon.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> I have been using this functional spec as a guide,
after
>> discussing
>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> with our Systems Engineering people this spec
meets our
>> requirements.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you have an implementation in mind?
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> We have an internal Cloud Meeting with conflicts
with the
>> cloudstack
>>>>>>>>>> "day"
>>>>>>>>>>> next week so I will not be in attendence.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Karl
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:35 PM, Daan Hoogland
<
>>>>>>>> daan.hoogland@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello overthere in the states,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tomorow I will start some experimenting with
redundant vpc
>> routers.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is to check up on any findings and requirements
that you
>> might
>>>>>>>>>>>> have on this. Once again I would not like
to waste work on this
>> as it
>>>>>>>>>>>> is really a globally usable feature that
is probably universal.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> please let me know your status on this.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> If any of you are coming to the cloudstack
day in London next
>> week,
>>>>>>>>>>>> let's meetup next thursday.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Daan Hoogland
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Karl O. Harris
>>>>>>>>>>> Cloud Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>>>> Sungard Availability Services
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Karl O. Harris
>>>>>>>>>> Cloud Software Engineer
>>>>>>>>>> Sungard Availability Services
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> Karl O. Harris
>>>>> Cloud Software Engineer
>>>>> Sungard Availability Services
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Karl O. Harris
>>> Cloud Software Engineer
>>> Sungard Availability Services
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Karl O. Harris
> Cloud Software Engineer
> Sungard Availability Services


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