incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ram Ganesh <Ram.Gan...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
Date Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:44:31 GMT
Any thoughts? Unless we hear otherwise would like to push the patches. This feature had been
code complete for a very long time. If there are still concerns/opinions let us know and we
can take steps to correct them.

Thanks,
Ram


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ram Ganesh [mailto:Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com]
> Sent: 15 November 2012 07:09
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> 
> David,
> 
> Can we go ahead with merge of AutoScale code into master? Are there any
> more open questions?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ram
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Vijay Venkatachalam [mailto:Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com]
> > Sent: 13 November 2012 12:34
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> >
> >
> > My replies inline
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Vijay V.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: David Nalley [mailto:david@gnsa.us]
> > > Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 7:42 PM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Re: Integrating autoscale branch to master?
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Vijay Venkatachalam
> > > <Vijay.Venkatachalam@citrix.com> wrote:
> > > > Ok I will keep changes ready, and will merge once 4.0's news is
> > declared.
> > > >
> > > > -Vijay V.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Vijay,
> > >
> > > I haven't kept up with this recently so a couple of
> > questions/assumptions:
> > >
> > > 1. Autoscale code will require NetScaler libraries right?
> >
> > There are 2 parts to autoscale code.
> > A. AutoScale Manager and its services,
> >   This is part of the core. And has no No Netscaler jar dependency;
> >   This part is coded like any other NetworkServiceManager, meaning
> any
> > network
> >   element can provide autoscale service.  So this part does not have
> > compile time
> >   dependency with NetScaler jar.
> >
> >   If an autoscale provider (which is most likely already an LB
> > provider) does not exist
> >   in that network an error is thrown at run time.
> >   So for all oss builds (where Netscaler is not packaged and cannot
> be
> > added
> >   to the infrastructure) we should get a run-time error when
> > configuring autoscale.
> >
> > B. NetScaler Element and Netscaler Resource (which is part of non-oss
> > build today)
> >      has been enhanced to provide autoscale capability. Today only
> >      NetScaler does this, in future any network element can he
> enhanced
> >      to provide autoscale. This part already has NetScaler jar
> > dependency
> >      (and is considered non-oss today)  and will continue to have
> > NetScaler
> >       jar dependency.
> >
> >
> > > 2. Is autoscale functionality modular enough that we can turn
> > building it
> > > on/off at will?
> >
> >
> > Short Answer, No.
> > Since AutoScale is like an addon to LB there are touch- points. For
> > example,
> > when a LoadBalancerRule is deleted the AutoScale entities created for
> > it
> > also should be deleted, hence the dependency.
> > Basically there is code in LB core to delete autoscale entities on
> the
> > loadbalancer
> > rule's delete path. Hence Part (A.) could not be modularized. Is
> there
> > an alternative here?
> >
> > Also, in the UI autoscale will appear as part of LB to the user and
> if
> > he attempts to configure
> > AutoScale in a network which does not have NetScaler; he will get a
> > run-time error.
> >
> > > 3. Has there been any change to the netscaler java library
> licensing?
> > > I know there was work underway, but I never heard about a
> conclusion.
> > >
> >
> > I am still chasing the legal team on this, but for the moment, we
> > should continue
> > to treat NetScaler as non-oss.
> >
> > > --David

Mime
View raw message