I had added Neutron and Fuel teams to this e-mail thread: Guys what is your thoughts on the subject?
We see three possible ways to implement Elastic Applications in Murano: using Heat & Neutron LBaaS, Heat & AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer resource and own solution using HAProxy directly (see more details in the mail-thread). Previously we was using Heat and AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer resource, but this way have certain limitations. Does Fuel team have plans to implement support for Neutron LBaaS any time soon? Guys from Heat suggest Neutron LBaaS as a best long-term solution. Neutron Team - what is your thoughts? On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Thomas Hervé <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Serg Melikyan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Murano has several applications which support scaling via load-balancing, > > this applications (Internet Information Services Web Farm, ASP.NET > > Application Web Farm) currently are based on Heat, particularly on > resource > > called AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer, that currently does not > > support specification of any network related parameters. > > > > Inability to specify network related params leads to incorrect behavior > > during deployment in tenants with advanced Quantum deployment > configuration, > > like Per-tenant Routers with Private Networks and this makes deployment > of > > our * Web Farm applications to fail. > > > > We need to resolve issues with our * Web Farm, and make this > applications to > > be reference implementation for elastic applications in Murano. > > > > This issue may be resolved in three ways: via extending configuration > > capabilities of AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer, using another > > implementation of load balancing in Heat - OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer or > via > > implementing own load balancing application (that going to balance other > > apllications), for example based on HAProxy (as all previous ones). > > > > Please, respond with your thoughts on the question: "Which > implementation we > > should use to resolve issue with our Web Farm applications and why?". > Below > > you can find more details about each of the options. > > > > AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer > > > > AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer is Amazon Cloud Formation > compatible > > resource that implements load balancer via hard-coded nested stack that > > deploys and configures HAProxy. This resource requires specific image > with > > CFN Tools and specific name F17-x86_64-cfntools available in Glance. It's > > look like we miss implementation of only one property in this resource - > > Subnets. > > > > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer > > > > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer is another Heat resource that implements load > > balancer. This resource is based on Load Balancer as a Service feature in > > Neutron. OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer is much more configurable and > > sophisticated but underlying implementation makes usage of this resource > > quite complex. > > LBaaS is a set of services installed and configured as a part of Neutron. > > Fuel does not support LBaaS; Devstack has support for LBaaS, but LBaaS > not > > installed by default with Neutron. > > > > Own, Based on HAProxy > > > > We may implement load-balancer as a regular application in Murano using > > HAProxy. This service may look like our Active Directory application with > > almost same user-expirience. User may create load-balancer inside of the > > environment and join any web-application (with any number of instances) > > directly to load-balancer. > > Load-balancer may be also implemented on Conductor workflows level, this > > implementation strategy not going to change user-experience (in fact we > > changing only underlying implementation details for our * Web Farm > > applications, without introducing new ones). > > Hi, > > I would strongly encourage using OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer. The AWS > resource is supposed to mirror Amazon capabilities, so any extension, > while not impossible, is frowned upon. On the other hand the Neutron > load balancer can be extended to your need, and being able to use an > API gives you much more flexibility. It also in active development and > will get more interesting features in the future. > > If you're having concerns about deploying Neutron LBaaS, you should > bring it up with the team, and I'm sure they can improve the > situation. My limited experience with it in devstack has been really > good. > > Cheers, > > -- > Thomas > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc. http://mirantis.com | [email protected]
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
