cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Angus <>
Subject RE: Getting rid of the Virtual Router (associated downtime)
Date Sat, 13 Feb 2016 10:18:00 GMT
Hi Nux,

John Burwell and I have been tossing around a few ideas as we absolutely plan to do 'something'.
We're thinking along the lines of separating the system 'VM's from the processes that are
run within it. And making the VR processes actual processes which can be moved around and
failed-over within the system 'VM's

John would be able to explain our ideas better.

Paul Angus
VP Technology   ,       ShapeBlue

d:      +44 203 617 0528 | s: +44 203 603 0540<tel:+44%20203%20617%200528%20|%20s:%20+44%20203%20603%200540>
    |      m:      +44 7711 418784<tel:+44%207711%20418784>

e: | t: @cloudyangus<|%20t:%20@cloudyangus>
     |      w:<>

a:      53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden London WC2N 4HS UK


Shape Blue Ltd is a company incorporated in England & Wales. ShapeBlue Services India
LLP is a company incorporated in India and is operated under license from Shape Blue Ltd.
Shape Blue Brasil Consultoria Ltda is a company incorporated in Brasil and is operated under
license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue SA Pty Ltd is a company registered by The Republic
of South Africa and is traded under license from Shape Blue Ltd. ShapeBlue is a registered
This email and any attachments to it may be confidential and are intended solely for the use
of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions expressed are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Shape Blue Ltd or related companies.
If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you must neither take any action based
upon its contents, nor copy or show it to anyone. Please contact the sender if you believe
you have received this email in error.

-----Original Message-----
From: Nux! []
Sent: 13 February 2016 09:41
To: dev <>
Subject: [Discuss] Getting rid of the Virtual Router (associated downtime)


I saw it mentioned somewhere around here in the recent past, but don't recall details.

Has anybody had any interesting ideas? I for one absolutely dread relying on the VR, and not
because of the VR itself, but for the downtime involved with upgrading it.

At work we've been running a SG zone and it's been rock solid with 100% uptime, but the lack
of features (multiple network support mainly) is becoming more and more pressing.

Is moving VR functionality down to the hypervisor an option for platforms that support this?
(Xen, KVM)


Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!

Find out more about ShapeBlue and our range of CloudStack related services:
IaaS Cloud Design & Build<> |
CSForge – rapid IaaS deployment framework<>
CloudStack Consulting<> | CloudStack Software
CloudStack Infrastructure Support<>
| CloudStack Bootcamp Training Courses<>

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