On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 2:39 AM, Alexey I. Froloff <ra...@raorn.name> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 02:28:39PM -0700, Andy Zhou wrote: > > This is what I think may work at a high level, ovn-northd and > > ovn-controller should be told about both active and backup > > servers and only connect to the active server initially. When > > the connections to the active ovsdb server are lost, they will > > try to establish connections to the back up server, and confirm > > that the back up server is now an active server, then continue > > to issue transactions from that point on. > So, in other words clustering will be done on database level, > database cluster chooses master and clients do stuff with this > master? Sounds right. Client has to maintain connections to the current active master. > What are you going to do with ovn-northd? Will it be > possible to have several daemons running on different nodes (in > parallel or in some active-passive state)? > This is a good point. I agree that we don't want ovn-northd to become a single point of failure. active-passive seems more straight forward. I will add it to the todo list. > The above functions have not been flushed out nor implemented. > > Feedbacks are welcome. > When I hear "we are planning to make XXX" from Open vSwitch team > this usually means "we will make XXX and it will be GREAT" ;-) Well, we still want to switch to etcd down the road. > > > > What clustering/HA/scalability features are planned for 2.6.0 > > > release? > > Would above plan, or something similar be sufficient? > Yes, thank you very much. > Thanks. Great questions, and timely as well. > > -- > Regards, -- > Sir Raorn. --- https://plus.google.com/+AlexeyFroloff > > _______________________________________________ > discuss mailing list > discuss@openvswitch.org > http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > >
_______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
