Hi Stephen,

Same drill

On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 13:33 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Hi Brandon!
> My responses in-line:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 11:27 AM, Brandon Logan
> <brandon.lo...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>         IN IRC the topic came up about supporting many-to-many load
>         balancers to
>         amphorae.  I believe a consensus was made that allowing only
>         one-to-many
>         load balancers to amphorae would be the first step forward,
>         and
>         re-evaluate later, since colocation and apolocation will need
>         to work
>         (which brings up another topic, defining what it actually
>         means to be
>         colocated: On the same amphorae, on the same amphorae host, on
>         the same
>         cell/cluster, on the same data center/availability zone. That
>         should be
>         something we discuss later, but not right now).
>         I am fine with that decisions, but Doug brought up a good
>         point that
>         this could very well just be a decision for the controller
>         driver and
>         Octavia shouldn't mandate this for all drivers.  So I think we
>         need to
>         clearly define what decisions are the responsibility of the
>         controller
>         driver versus what decisions are mandated by Octavia's
>         construct.
> In my mind, the only thing dictated by the controller to the driver
> here would be things related to colocation / apolocation. So in order
> to fully have that discussion here, we first need to have a
> conversation about what these things actually mean in the context of
> Octavia and/or get specific requirements from operators here.  The
> reference driver (ie. haproxy amphora) will of course have to follow a
> given behavior here as well, and there's the possibility that even if
> we don't dictate behavior in one way or another, operators and users
> may come to expect the behavior of the reference driver here to become
> the defacto requirements.

So since with HA we will want apolocation, are you saying the controller
should dictate that every driver create a load balancer's amphorae on
different hosts?  I'm not sure the controller could enforce this, other
than code reviews, but I might be a short-sighted here.

>         Items I can come up with off the top of my head:
>         1) LB:Amphora - M:N vs 1:N
> My opinion:  For simplicity, first revision should be 1:N, but leave
> open the possibility of M:N at a later date, depending on what people
> require. That is to say, we'll only do 1:N at first so we can have
> simpler scheduling algorithms for now, but let's not paint ourselves
> into a corner in other portions of the code by assuming there will
> only ever be one LB on an amphora.

This is reasonable.  Of course, this brings up the question on whether
we should keep the table structure as is with a M:N relationship.  My
opinion is we start with the 1:N table structure.  My reasons are in
response to your comment on this review:


>         2) VIPs:LB - M:N vs 1:N
> So, I would revise that to be N:1 or 1:1. I don't think we'll ever
> want to support a case where multiple LBs share the same VIP.
> (Multiple amphorae per VIP, yes... but not multiple LBs per VIP. LBs
> are logical constructs that also provide for good separation of
> concerns, particularly around security.)

Yeah sorry about that, brain fart.  Unless we want shareable VIPs!?
anyone? anyone?
> The most solid use case for N:1 that I've heard is the IPv6 use case,
> where a user wants to expose the exact same services over IPv4 and
> IPv6, and therefore it makes sense to be able to have multiple VIPs
> per load balancer. (In fact, I'm not aware of other use cases here
> that hold any water.) Having said this, we're quite a ways from IPv6
> being ready for use in the underlying networking infrastructure.
> So...  again, I would say let's go with 1:1 for now to make things
> simple for scheduling, but not paint ourselves into a corner here
> architecturally in other areas of the code by assuming there will only
> ever be one VIP per LB.

Yeah N:1 every comes up as something we should and can do, we'll revisit
it then.
>         3) Pool:HMs - 1:N vs 1:1
> Does anyone have a solid use case for having more than one health
> monitor per pool?  (And how do you resolve conflicts in health monitor
> check results?)  I can't think of one, so 1:1 has my vote here.

I don't know of any strong ones, but it is allowed by some vendors.
>         I'm sure there are others.  I'm sure each one will need to be
>         evaluated
>         on a case-by-case basis.  We will be walking a fine line
>         between
>         flexibility and complexity.  We just need to define how far
>         over that
>         line and in which direction we are willing to go.
>         Thanks,
>         Brandon
>         _______________________________________________
>         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>         OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> -- 
> Stephen Balukoff 
> Blue Box Group, LLC 
> (800)613-4305 x807
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to