Hi Ilya, Thanks for the feedback - so, did I understand it right that your point of view is that mgmt. network on DVS is not a super-critical need?
Hari -----Original Message----- From: Musayev, Ilya [mailto:imusa...@webmd.net] Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 5:01 PM To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org Cc: Sateesh Chodapuneedi; Koushik Das; Anantha Kasetty Subject: RE: question on Distributed Virtual Switch support Hari I gave a second thought to your request about having a support for management network and DVS. Here are the use cases, Be default the hypervisors are deployed with local vswitch0 and management network portgroup. In most cases, if you have more than 2 NICs, assume it's 6-8, then breakdown for network is usually something like, 2 NICs (bonded) for vSwitch0 2 NICs (bonded) for vmotion 2 -4 NICs (bonded) for Guest VMs - usually this is where you insert DVS. 2 NICs (bonded) for storage - either local or DVS switch - if no SAN. If your hypervisor only has 2 NICs, technically this is bad design, but even so, you have to bind the 2 interfaces and use DVS for everything, from managememt to vmotion to guest vm communication. This is usually LAB environemnts (at least in my case). While this is an important feature request - it will help smaller subset of customers who only use 2 NICs for everything. Probably forward looking, VmWare may decide to DVS everything at some point and we need this ability anyway. Regards Ilya "Musayev, Ilya" <imusa...@webmd.net> wrote: +1 .. MGMT is also part of DVS in our and other ENVs. > -----Original Message----- > From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > Sent: Friday, March 08, 2013 2:25 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Cc: Sateesh Chodapuneedi; Koushik Das; Anantha Kasetty > Subject: Re: question on Distributed Virtual Switch support > > On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 2:20 PM, Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: > > Hi Sateesh, > > > > As we increase the cluster size, I wonder not having the management > network on DVS might be an issue. I would strongly suggest we consider this. > I also spoke to some folks who are more knowledgeable with customer > implementations and they also say this would be an issue. > > > > As you know, we have a separate feature being discussed - support > > for > PVLAN - so, PVLAN support via DVS is a must-have requirement.. > > +1 - yes please.
