On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:53 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Yedidyah Bar David <[email protected]> wrote: >> (Re-opening an old thread) >> >> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Yedidyah Bar David <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 9:45 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:18 PM, Yaniv Kaul <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Dan Kenigsberg <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 10:33 AM, Martin Perina <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> > Will OVN provider be mandatory for all engine 4.2 installation? Can OVN >>>>>> > provider be installed on different host than engine? If not mandatory >>>>>> > or >>>>>> > "may be on different host", then it should be handled similar way as >>>>>> > DWH, so >>>>>> > it should be in separate package and it's engine-setup part should also >>>>>> > be >>>>>> > in separate package. >>>>>> >>>>>> In 4.2, OVN provider is configured by default on the Engine host, but >>>>>> the user can opt to avoid that. He can then configure the provider >>>>>> manually, and add it manually to Engine. We have already limited the >>>>>> automatic configuration of OVN to the case of it running on the same >>>>>> host. >>>>>> >>>>>> When looked from this perspective, adding an explicit rpm-level >>>>>> Requires, does not make things much worse, it only makes reality >>>>>> visible. >>>>>> >>>>>> > And even if we don't support OVN on different host in >>>>>> > 4.2, we can prepare for the future ... >>>>>> >>>>>> A big question is whether that future includes installing things on a >>>>>> remote host (as in DWH), or alternatively spawning a container. >>>>>> Implementing the OVN deployment to the Engine machine took quite a big >>>>>> effort[1]. I worry that extending it to allow remote host would be >>>>>> even more consuming, it's not a minor preparation but a mid-size >>>>>> feature on its own. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure anyone answered how heavy (CPU, memory, disk size) it is on >>>>> the >>>>> Engine. >>>> >>>> On another thread, Sandro mentioned the effect on disk size: +17Mb, +2%. >>>> >>>> CPU and Memory are much harder to estimate, as they depend on the >>>> number of networks and hosts controlled by OVN. Mor, can you provide >>>> numbers for a small cluster that you tested? >>> >>> I believe these are irrelevant if the user opts to not configure/run >>> OVN on the engine machine. My (not sure about Yaniv's) question was only >>> about disk space, which iiuc is the only implication of making engine >>> Require: ovn. Still, if possible, it will be useful if someone can >>> provide cpu/memory use, and also the list of dependencies for the ovn >>> package (and the provider package) - especially if there are ones that >>> are not from the base OS. >> >> Any update? >> >> I still think that we should either make the engine Require: ovn >> or change the default to 'No'. > > I don't have much to add. It code simplicity vs. deployment flexibility. > Recently, my opinion (for flexibility) was overruled when ovn-driver > was added as a requirement of ovirt-host. It can be similarly be > overruled on Engine. I don't care *that* much about the ability to > install ovirt-engine with openvswitch baggage. I won't NACK a > "Require: ovn" if you think it's still useful.
Pushed: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/81960 -- Didi _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
