On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 03:01:37PM -0800, Bob Lantz wrote: > I think the best option for me would be to do what I believe the > reference implementation and NEC's switch do: by default, when you > set multiple controllers, the switch connects to the first > controller and uses the other controllers in the list as backup > controllers, trying them in round-robin order as necessary. If you > want to support a custom load-balancing/multi-controller extension > in OVS, you could do so via a selectable option (which could be on > or off by default) or have it off by default and activated when a > particular extension message is received.
That wouldn't be acceptable because it would break the way that we use OVS routinely, all the time, at Nicira. > Another idea would be to change the set-controller syntax to allow a > hybrid of what OVS seems to do right now (connecting to multiple > controllers) and the NEC/reference switches do. For example, a > syntax of > > a,b,c;d,e,f;g,h,i > > could specify that a,b,c are the first controller group; if none of > them are reachable then the second controller group is used, and so > on. The ovs-vsctl syntax isn't that important, as long as it's backward compatible. It's more important to specify the desired underlying functionality. I think that this functionality would satisfy our internal requirements. > A third option would be to add a 'backup-controllers' option which > could be configured. This seems less general than #2. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
