[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4374?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15054155#comment-15054155
]
ASF subversion and git services commented on CLOUDSTACK-4374:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commit 0d075906ad40b0bd681ece777045684379ba93a5 in cloudstack's branch
refs/heads/master from [~wilder.rodrigues]
[ https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=cloudstack.git;h=0d07590 ]
CLOUDSTACK-4374 - Adds HA capabilities to redundant routers
- Redundant Routers are not the same as Haigh Available.
Having a router HA is actually saying that the given router will be
controlled by the High Availability monitor.
Hence fix any problem we might face.
> As a Developer I want to have HA enabled for routers that are part or a
> redundant network or VPC
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CLOUDSTACK-4374
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4374
> Project: CloudStack
> Issue Type: Bug
> Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the
> default.)
> Components: Virtual Router
> Affects Versions: 4.1.0, 4.4.0, 4.5.0, 4.6.0, 4.6.1
> Reporter: Roeland Kuipers
> Assignee: Wilder Rodrigues
> Fix For: 4.7.0
>
>
> We provide redundant routers with HA functionality through a special service
> offering.
> However these router pairs are provisioned with ha_enabled=0, so when one or
> both of them fail they will never be restarted by CS.
> 2013-08-16 15:51:16,101 DEBUG [cloud.ha.HighAvailabilityManagerImpl]
> (HA-Worker-0:work-4335) VM is not HA enabled so we're done.
> This is currently hardcoded in VirtualNetworkApplianceManagerImpl.java @ 1633
> boolean offerHA = routerOffering.getOfferHA();
> /* We don't provide HA to redundant router VMs, admin should
> own it all, and redundant router themselves are HA */
> if (isRedundant) {
> offerHA = false;
> }
> We like redundancy and like to have HA on our redundant routers. We like to
> configure this ourselves through service offerings and do not like being helt
> hostage by these lines of codes:) We do like to own it all in our admin role
> :)
> Besides this, this is also very counter-intuitive as we were expecting HA on
> our redundant routers, since it was configured on their service offering.
> So can we get rid of these lines of code? And have this controlled through
> service offerings as it should IMHO.? Unless this has negative impact which
> we are not aware off?
> Cheers & Thanks,
> Roeland
> Details of the original commit which injected this code:
> Commit: a269b089ae38d0d04db2fa0f4c8e839480476ddc [a269b08]
> Parents: a2cc66ce41
> Author: Sheng Yang <[email protected]>
> Date: 17 december 2011 03:52:59 CET
> Commit Date: 19 december 2011 22:29:48 CET
> bug 12608: NaaS: Don't shutdown elements if cleanup=false
> We can use the restartNetwork mechanism to recover the disconnected redundant
> router.
> Also disable HA for redundant router. Admin would take responsibilty to
> recover
> the failure router, because redundant routers themselves are one layer HA.
> status 12608: resolved fixed
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
