A valid concern Marcus. 'Persistent' will not be a default setting. When there is a need for persistent networks, admin can create and enable a network offering with the persistent property set to true. And only if users use this network offering to create a network will the network be persistent. Also note that all default network offerings will have the persistent property set to false and while creating a new network offering if the persistent value is not specified it will default to false.
Thank you, Likitha >-----Original Message----- >From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 9:24 AM >To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Persistent Networks without a running VM > >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.she...@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.s...@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.gan...@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.she...@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.vit...@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.s...@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.she...@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.s...@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/Persiste >> > >> >>nt+N >> > >> >>et >> > >> w >> > >> > >>ork >> > >> > >>s >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >>Regards, >> > >> > >>Manan Shah >> > >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> >>
