Hi,

I think we are debating some edge-case. An important part of the flavor 
framework is the ability of me the operator to say failover from Octavia to an 
F5. So as an operator I would ensure to only offer the features in that flavor 
which both support. So in order to arrive at Brandon’s example I would have 
misconfigured my environment and rightfully would get errors at the drive level 
– which might be hard to understand for end users but hopefully pretty clear 
for me the operator…

German

From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 9:56 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on "Calling driver 
interface on every API request"

Well, that exactly what we've tried to solve with tags in the flavor.

Considering your example with whole configuration being sent to the driver - i 
think it will be fine to not apply unsupported parts of configuration (like 
such HM) and mark the HM object with error status/status description.

Thanks,
Eugene.

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 12:33 AM, Brandon Logan 
<brandon.lo...@rackspace.com<mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
Hi Eugene,
An example of the HM issue (and really this can happen with any entity)
is if the driver the API sends the configuration to does not actually
support the value of an attribute.

For example: Provider A support PING health monitor type, Provider B
does not.  API allows the PING health monitor type to go through.  Once
a load balancer has been linked with that health monitor and the
LoadBalancer chose to use Provider B, that entire configuration is then
sent to the driver.  The driver errors out not on the LoadBalancer
create, but on the health monitor create.

I think that's the issue.

Thanks,
Brandon

On Tue, 2014-08-12 at 00:17 +0400, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
>
> That actually going in opposite direction to what flavor framework is
> trying to do (and for dispatching it's doing the same as providers).
> REST call dispatching should really go via the root object.
>
>
> I don't quite get the issue with health monitors. If HM is incorrectly
> configured prior to association with a pool - API layer should handle
> that.
> I don't think driver implementations should be different at
> constraints to HM parameters.
>
>
> So I'm -1 on adding provider (or flavor) to each entity. After all, it
> looks just like data denormalization which actually will affect lots
> of API aspects in negative way.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Eugene.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Vijay Venkatachalam
> <vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com<mailto:vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com>> wrote:
>
>         Yes, the point was to say "the plugin need not restrict and
>         let driver decide what to do with the API".
>
>         Even if the call was made to driver instantaneously, I
>         understand, the driver might decide to ignore
>         first and schedule later. But, if the call is present, there
>         is scope for validation.
>         Also, the driver might be scheduling an async-api to backend,
>         in which case  deployment error
>         cannot be shown to the user instantaneously.
>
>         W.r.t. identifying a provider/driver, how would it be to make
>         tenant the default "root" object?
>         "tenantid" is already associated with each of these entities,
>         so no additional pain.
>         For the tenant who wants to override let him specify provider
>         in each of the entities.
>         If you think of this in terms of the UI, let's say if the
>         loadbalancer configuration is exposed
>         as a single wizard (which has loadbalancer, listener, pool,
>         monitor properties) then provider
>          is chosen only once.
>
>         Curious question, is flavour framework expected to address
>         this problem?
>
>         Thanks,
>         Vijay V.
>
>         -----Original Message-----
>         From: Doug Wiegley 
> [mailto:do...@a10networks.com<mailto:do...@a10networks.com>]
>
>         Sent: 11 August 2014 22:02
>         To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>         questions)
>         Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on
>         "Calling driver interface on every API request"
>
>         Hi Sam,
>
>         Very true.  I think that Vijay’s objection is that we are
>         currently imposing a logical structure on the driver, when it
>         should be a driver decision.  Certainly, it goes both ways.
>
>         And I also agree that the mechanism for returning multiple
>         errors, and the ability to specify whether those errors are
>         fatal or not, individually, is currently weak.
>
>         Doug
>
>
>         On 8/11/14, 10:21 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" 
> <samu...@radware.com<mailto:samu...@radware.com>>
>         wrote:
>
>         >Hi Doug,
>         >
>         >In some implementations Driver !== Device. I think this is
>         also true
>         >for HA Proxy.
>         >This might mean that there is a difference between creating a
>         logical
>         >object and when there is enough information to actually
>         schedule/place
>         >this into a device.
>         >The ability to express such errors (detecting an error on a
>         logical
>         >object after it was created but when it actually get
>         scheduled) should
>         >be discussed and addressed anyway.
>         >
>         >-Sam.
>         >
>         >
>         >-----Original Message-----
>         >From: Doug Wiegley 
> [mailto:do...@a10networks.com<mailto:do...@a10networks.com>]
>         >Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 6:55 PM
>         >To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>         questions)
>         >Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on
>         "Calling
>         >driver interface on every API request"
>         >
>         >Hi all,
>         >
>         >> Validations such as ³timeout > delay² should be performed
>         on the API
>         >>level before it reaches the driver.
>         >For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there
>         should be
>         >one provider.
>         >
>         >You¹re right, but I think the point of Vijay¹s example was to
>         highlight
>         >the combo error problem with populating all of the driver
>         objects at
>         >once (in short, the driver interface isn¹t well suited to
>         that model.)
>         >That his one example can be covered by API validators is
>         irrelevant.
>         >Consider a backend that does not support APP_COOKIE¹s, or
>         >HTTPS_TERMINATED (but has multiple listeners) instead.
>          Should the
>         >entire load balancer create fail, or should it offer degraded
>         service?
>         >Do all drivers have to implement a transaction rollback;
>         wait, the
>         >interface makes that very hard.  That¹s his point.  The
>         driver is no
>         >longer just glue code between interfaces; it¹s now a
>         mini-object error handler.
>         >
>         >
>         >> Having provider defined in multiple places does not make
>         sense.
>         >
>         >Channeling Brandon, who can yell if I get this wrong, the
>         point is not
>         >to have a potentially different provider on each object.
>          It¹s to allow
>         >a provider to be assigned when the first object in the tree
>         is created,
>         >so that future related objects will always get routed to the
>         same provider.
>         >Not knowing which provider should get all the objects is why
>         we have to
>         >wait until we see a LoadBalancer object.
>         >
>         >
>         >All of this sort of edge case nonsense is because we (the
>         royal we, the
>         >community), wanted all load balancer objects to be ³root²
>         objects, even
>         >though only one of them is an actual root today, to support
>         >many-to-many relationships among all of them, at some future
>         date,
>         >without an interface change.  If my bias is showing that I¹m
>         not a fan
>         >of adding this complexity for that, I¹m not surprised.
>         >
>         >Thanks,
>         >doug
>         >
>         >
>         >On 8/11/14, 7:57 AM, "Samuel Bercovici" 
> <samu...@radware.com<mailto:samu...@radware.com>>
>         wrote:
>         >
>         >>Hi,
>         >>
>         >>Validations such as ³timeout > delay² should be performed on
>         the API
>         >>level before it reaches the driver.
>         >>
>         >>For a configuration tree (lb, listeners, pools, etc.), there
>         should be
>         >>one provider.
>         >>
>         >>Having provider defined in multiple places does not make
>         sense.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>-San.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>From: Vijay Venkatachalam
>         
> [mailto:vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com<mailto:vijay.venkatacha...@citrix.com>]
>         >>
>         >>Sent: Monday, August 11, 2014 2:43 PM
>         >>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>         
> >>(openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>)
>         >>Subject: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][LBaaS] Continuing on
>         "Calling
>         >>driver interface on every API request"
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>Hi:
>         >>
>         >>Continuing from last week¹s LBaaS meetingŠ
>         >>
>         >>Currently an entity cannot be sent to driver unless it is
>         linked to
>         >>loadbalancer because loadbalancer is the root object and
>         driver
>         >>information is only available with loadbalancer.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>The request to the driver is delayed because of which error
>         >>propagation becomes tricky.
>         >>
>         >>Let¹s say a monitor was configured with timeout > delay
>         there would be
>         >>no error then.
>         >>When a listener is configured there will be a monitor
>         >>creation/deployment error like ³timeout configured greater
>         than delay².
>         >>
>         >>Unless the error is very clearly crafted the user won¹t be
>         able to
>         >>understand the error.
>         >>
>         >>I am half-heartedly OK with current approach.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>But, I would prefer Brandon¹s Solution ­ make provider an
>         attribute in
>         >>each of the entities to get rid of this problem.
>         >>
>         >>
>         >>What do others think?
>         >>
>         >>Thanks,
>         >>Vijay V.
>         >>
>         >
>         >
>         >_______________________________________________
>         >OpenStack-dev mailing list
>         
> >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>         >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>         >
>         >_______________________________________________
>         >OpenStack-dev mailing list
>         
> >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>         >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>         
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>         _______________________________________________
>         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>         
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to