I'm afraid I don't agree on some of your comments, Wido. On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> wrote:
> > > On 02/05/2018 04:44 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > >> H devs, >> >> I have recently (re-)submitted two PRs, one by Wei [1] and one by Remi >> [2], >> that reduce downtime for redundant routers and redundant VPCs >> respectively. >> (please review those) >> Now from customers we hear that they also want to reduce downtime for >> regular VRs so as we discussed this we came to two possible solutions that >> we want to implement one of: >> >> 1. start and configure a new router before destroying the old one and then >> as a last minute action stop the old one. >> > > Seems like a simple solution to me, this wouldn't require a lot of changes > in the VR. > expect add in a stop moment just before activating, that doesn't exist yet. > > 2. make all routers start up redundancy services but for regular routers >> start only one until an upgrade is required at which time a new, second >> router can be started before killing the old one. >> > > True, but that would be a problem as you would need to script a lot in the > VR. all the scripts for rvr are already on the systemvm > > > >> obviously both solutions have their merits, so I want to have your input >> to make the broadest supported implementation. >> -1 means there will be an overlap or a small delay and interruption of >> service. >> +1 It can be argued, "they got what they payed for". >> -2 means a overhead in memory usage by the router by the extra services >> running on it. >> +2 the number of router-varieties will be further reduced. >> >> -1&-2 We have to deal with potentially large upgrade steps from way before >> the cloudstack era even and might be stuck to 1 because of that, needing >> to >> hack around it. Any dealing with older VRs, pre 4.5 and especially pre 4.0 >> will be hard. >> >> > I don't like hacking. The VRs already are 'hacky' imho. > yes, it is. > > We (PCextreme) are only using Basic Networking so for us the VR only does > DHCP and Cloud-init, so we don't care about this that much ;) > thanks for the input anyway, Wido > > Wido > > > I am not cross posting though this might be one of these occasions where it >> is appropriate to include users@. Just my puristic inhibitions. >> >> Of course I have preferences but can you share your thoughts, please? >> >> And don't forget to review Wei's [1] and Remi's [2] work please. >> >> [1] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2435 >> [2] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/2436 >> >> -- Daan
