Hari I don't want to be selfish person and make that call.
There are vmware best practices, the example I've given below considers to be common best practice. Technically, you really don't need to use DVS on switch0 management pgroup because it is created by default when esxi is installed. DVS is a template switch configuration with port accountability (and other features). Typically, you use DVS to avoid the manual configuration/management of virtual switches within a cluster - it usually done for guest vms networks and usually you don't want to mix guest vm traffic with management network. Hence supervisor management network resides on separate vswitch0, which comes by default, with only hosts management traffic. This is common best practice, but people can get very fancy with configs and I don't want to speak for the rest of the community. There maybe customers who only have 2NICs on their servers and it that case - if they use DVS, they wont be able to use CS. Also, for most proof of concept work of CS, people tend to use basic gear with 2 NICs in LAB, they won't be able to test CS if they used DVS on everything including management net. My humble opinion, it's is certainly a needed feature in 4.2, and while Sateesh remembers how it's done (fresh mind) It would probably makes sense to add this feature sooner than later. I will leave it for someone else to make a judgement call on urgency. Thanks Ilya Hari Kannan <hari.kan...@citrix.com> wrote: 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.
