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] VR upgrade downtime reduction
Date Tue, 06 Feb 2018 11:28:56 GMT
I'm afraid I don't agree on some of your comments, Wido.

On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl> wrote:

>
>
> On 02/05/2018 04:44 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote:
>
>> H devs,
>>
>> I have recently (re-)submitted two PRs, one by Wei [1] and one by Remi
>> [2],
>> that reduce downtime for redundant routers and redundant VPCs
>> respectively.
>> (please review those)
>> Now from customers we hear that they also want to reduce downtime for
>> regular VRs so as we discussed this we came to two possible solutions that
>> we want to implement one of:
>>
>> 1. start and configure a new router before destroying the old one and then
>> as a last minute action stop the old one.
>>
>
> Seems like a simple solution to me, this wouldn't require a lot of changes
> in the VR.
>
​expect add in a stop moment just before activating, that doesn't exist yet.
​


>
> 2. make all routers start up redundancy services but for regular routers
>> start only one until an upgrade is required at which time a new, second
>> router can be started before killing the old one.​
>>
>
> True, but that would be a problem as you would need to script a lot in the
> VR.

​all the scripts for rvr are already on the systemvm
​


>
>
>
>> ​obviously both solutions have their merits, so I want to have your input
>> to make the broadest supported implementation.
>> -1 means there will be an overlap or a small delay and interruption of
>> service.
>> +1 It can be argued, "they got what they payed for".
>> -2 means a overhead in memory usage by the router by the extra services
>> running on it.
>> +2 the number of router-varieties will be further reduced.
>>
>> -1&-2 We have to deal with potentially large upgrade steps from way before
>> the cloudstack era even and might be stuck to 1 because of that, needing
>> to
>> hack around it. Any dealing with older VRs, pre 4.5 and especially pre 4.0
>> will be hard.
>>
>>
> I don't like hacking. The VRs already are 'hacky' imho.
>
​yes, it is.​


>
> We (PCextreme) are only using Basic Networking so for us the VR only does
> DHCP and Cloud-init, so we don't care about this that much ;)
>
​thanks for the input anyway, Wido
​


>
> Wido
>
>
> I am not cross posting though this might be one of these occasions where it
>> is appropriate to include users@. Just my puristic inhibitions.
>>
>> Of course I have preferences but can you share your thoughts, please?
>> ​
>> ​And don't forget to review Wei's [1] and Remi's [2] work please.
>>
>> ​[1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2435​
>> [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2436
>>
>>


-- 
Daan

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