incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2013 03:53:47 GMT
I know I'm a bit late to the party, and ive only been halfway paying
attention, but I just want to ensure that we're not going to go down the
path of making this a default setting. One of the current strengths is that
only the resources needed are configured, this persistence has its uses but
will ultimately hamper scalability, for example if I need to have 3000
bridges configured on every host even though they each only need a subset
of 16 or so.
On Jan 7, 2013 4:39 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.shetty@citrix.com> wrote:

> Created the first draft of the Functional spec -
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+-+Persistent+Networks
> .
> Will keep updating it based on the feedback.
>
> Thank you,
> Likitha
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.shah@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10:26 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
> >
> > Chiradeep, Likitha,
> >
> > My take is that we need to support both kinds of networks (persistent as
> well as
> > non-persistent). Also, I don't think we can have this as a zone-wide
> behavior
> > because not all networks in a zone would need to be persistent.
> >
> > For example, if you are deploying a multi-tier application, you might
> only want
> > the DB tier to be persistent.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Manan Shah
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 1/3/13 11:31 PM, "Ram Ganesh" <Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Does it make sense to introduce the flag(persistent) as part of
> > >NetworkOffering?
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >RamG
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: Likitha Shetty [mailto:likitha.shetty@citrix.com]
> > >> Sent: 03 January 2013 18:05
> > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
> > >>
> > >> Please find my answers and queries inline.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you,
> > >> Likitha
> > >>
> > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > >> > From: Chiradeep Vittal [mailto:Chiradeep.Vittal@citrix.com]
> > >> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 1:03 PM
> > >> > To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> > >> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
> > >> >
> > >> > So:
> > >> > 1. There needs to be both kinds of networks available (persistent
> > >> > as
> > >> well as non-
> > >> > persistent) in the same zone?
> > >> Yes
> > >>
> > >> > From an end-user perspective this is going to be confusing since
> > >> > she
> > >> has not
> > >> > been exposed to this internal state before (and generally the end-
> > >> user is not
> > >> > aware of the internal state of the infrastructure).
> > >> +1. Say we have a new API 'ProvisionNetwork' to provision a network
> > >> that has been created by the user. Since the user is not aware of the
> > >> internal state of a network it would be confusing for the user to
> > >> understand the difference b/w the 2 API's, CreateNetwork and
> > >> ProvisionNetwork.
> > >>
> > >> > Is it OK to make this behavior
> > >> > zone-wide, I.e., on every guest network?
> > >> But this would mean having all networks (in the zone which has this
> > >> behavior enabled) in an implemented state, even if a network has no
> > >> physical device or VM deployed in it. This is changing the default CS
> > >> behavior of not having resources allocated to a network if the
> > >> network doesn't require it. Is that acceptable ?
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > On 12/31/12 10:19 AM, "Manan Shah" <manan.shah@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > >Thanks Likitha for picking up this requirement. You have correctly
> > >> > >interpreted the requirements.
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Regards,
> > >> > >Manan Shah
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > >On 12/31/12 2:52 AM, "Likitha Shetty" <likitha.shetty@citrix.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >>Hi,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>I would like to work on the proposed feature.
> > >> > >>Restating the requirement. Currently in CloudStack when a
user
> > >> creates
> > >> > >>a network, a db entry for that network is made, a VLAN ID
is
> > >> assigned
> > >> > >>and the network is created only when the first VM on that
network
> > >> is
> > >> > created.
> > >> > >>With this feature CloudStack should allow users to provision
the
> > >> > >>created network i.e. assign a VLAN ID and implement the network
> > >> > >>without having to deploy VM's on that network.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>Comments/Suggestions on the requirement ?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>Thank you,
> > >> > >>Likitha
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>-----Original Message-----
> > >> > >>From: Manan Shah [mailto:manan.shah@citrix.com]
> > >> > >>Sent: Saturday, December 22, 2012 7:01 AM
> > >> > >>To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > >> > >>Subject: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>Hi,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>I would like to propose a new feature for persistent networks
> > >> without
> > >> > >>running VMs. I have created a JIRA ticket and provided the
> > >> > >>requirements at the following location.  Please provide feedback
> > >> > >>on
> > >> the
> > >> > requirements.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>JIRA Ticket: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-706
> > >> > >>Requirements:
> > >> >
> > >> >>https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Persistent+N
> > >> >>et
> > >> w
> > >> > >>ork
> > >> > >>s
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>Regards,
> > >> > >>Manan Shah
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >
>
>

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