On May 21, 2012, at 12:20 PM, Gary Kotton wrote: > > Hi, > Thanks for the comments. Please see my replies inline. I hope that these will > not take up too much CPU on your side. > Thanks > Gary > > On 05/21/2012 07:57 PM, Dan Wendlandt wrote: >> Btw, this actually isn't the case for the OVS plugin. The OVS vif driver in >> Nova passes the entire attachment UUID to OVS by setting an attribute on the >> local OVSDB entry for that port (note: the ovsdb is a simple embedded >> database that runs as part of OVS on the hypervisor... it is completely >> distinct from the primary database used by the OVS plugin). > Can you please point me out to the code in Nova. I want to make sure that I > have my bases covered.
Helping Dan out here: It's in nova/virt/libvirt/vif.py, under the classLibvirtOpenVswitchVirtualPortDriver, function plug. >> >> >> In addition to this I think that there are a number of additional issues >> that we need to address: >> 1. Inclusion of openstack common - on the IRC last night it was mentioned to >> have a blueprint for the config (I feel this only addresses a small part of >> the problem). I think that we should do this for the openstack common >> project. Thgis will be healthier in the short and long run. >> >> I think the proposal was to use the existing config library that is already >> a part of openstack common. Is that what you are suggesting, or something >> else? > Yes, this is correct. As far as I understand the Open Stack common library > may not support 2.4. It may have to be updated. >> >> 2. Python 2.4. I have yet to understand how to identify which modules are >> from later versions. If this is a MUST for the agents then we can leave the >> agents as they are and introduce new agents that support RPC. Is this a >> viable solution? >> >> I'd REALLY like to avoid having the core team work on two separate versions >> the agents for 2.4 vs. > 2.4. I think it would slow us down. For 2.4 >> things that are purely syntactic (e.g., not using "as" for exceptions), I >> think its fine for us to enforce this as part of our code review process. >> If there are libraries important to new capabilities where the clearly >> superior choice is not an option for 2.4, I think we need to raise this as a >> community discussion point. Is there a particular module you have in mind? > I am not familiar with Xen. I am trying to understand why the agents have to > run in dom0. From my understand the VIF driver does not run in dom0. Would it > be possible to understand why the driver has to run in dom0? > > I am not sure if you have read > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MbcBA2Os4b98ybdgAw2qe_68R1NG6KMh8zdZKgOlpvg/edit. > I have the linuxbridge up and running. This make use of a hacked library of > the RPC - hopefully in the near future we will be able to import the common > library. Once the linux bridge library is up and running I'll proceed to make > the changes to the OVS. > > Thanks > Gary -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~netstack Post to : netstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~netstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
