> Then we should close [1] as invalid, shoudn’t we?

AFAIC, no. We should check whether there is enough IPs for nodes /
VIPs with current network configuration.

I'd propose to add a handler for allocation of VIPs if VIPs can be useful
before deployment.
I'm not sure what are the cases.



Aleksey Kasatkin


On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Roman Prykhodchenko <m...@romcheg.me> wrote:

> Then we should close [1] as invalid, shoudn’t we?
>
> > 20 жовт. 2015 р. о 15:55 Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com>
> написав(ла):
> >
> > Roman,
> >
> >> This behavior is actually described in [1]. Should we allocate
> >> VIPs on network check as well?
> >
> > No, we shouldn't. We should check whether it's enough IPs for nodes /
> > VIPs with current network configuration, but no more.
> >
> > - igor
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com>
> wrote:
> >> Andrew,
> >>
> >>> but the problem lies that VIP's need to already be allocated.
> >>
> >> Why? Fuel doesn't use them on this stage.
> >>
> >>
> >>> They need to be allocated on network update, or when a node role
> requiring
> >>> one is added to the environment.
> >>
> >> It looks like either you or me misunderstood something. AFAIK, node
> >> role itself has nothing in common with VIPs. It doesn't require any of
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Currently VIPs are requested by network roles, and network roles are
> >> the same for all nodes (except Network Templating case). Network roles
> >> are assigned on network, and if VIP is required for network role it
> >> will be allocated in the assigned network.
> >>
> >> So basically, it requires a huge effort to redesign our allocation
> >> system to achieve what you want, because:
> >>
> >> * Each time you reassign network role, the corresponding VIP should be
> >> re-allocated in the database either.
> >> * Each time you enable/disable plugins, the VIPs should be
> >> re-allocated, because plugins may export network roles.
> >> * Each time you add new node to cluster, the VIPs should be
> >> re-allocated, because with new node you simply may run out of free
> >> IPs. And, btw, should we assign IP on added nodes here? Or maybe
> >> postpone to serialization step?
> >>
> >> Well, Andrew, I believe we don't have enough resources to implement
> >> your proposal. Moreover, the proposed approach requires a lot of
> >> discussions and design meetings. And it definitely should be
> >> implemented in scope of some blueprint, not a bugfix.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Not knowing the address until serialization for deployment is too late.
> >>
> >> Once again - why? I agree, perhaps it would be useful, but there's no
> >> strict requirement on this and we should resolve our issues
> >> step-by-step. See my response above.
> >>
> >>
> >>> No, Again, this is too late.
> >>
> >> Too late for what?
> >>
> >>
> >> - Igor
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko <m...@romcheg.me>
> wrote:
> >>> My concern here is that there is also a Network check feature that
> according to its name should check things like whether or not there’s
> enough IP addresses in all ranges in a network. The problem is that it may
> be run at any time, even when VIPs are not yet allocated. From a user-side
> the workflow may look a little wrong:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Check network => get "Everything is fine"
> >>> 2. Right after that press Apply Changes => get "Network configuration
> is bad"
> >>>
> >>> This behavior is actually described in [1]. Should we allocate VIPs on
> network check as well?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1487996
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - romcheg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> 19 жовт. 2015 р. о 18:28 Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com>
> написав(ла):
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi Roman,
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not assign addresses to VIPs is a network configuration is being
> >>>>> serialized for API output.
> >>>>
> >>>> AFAIK, that's not truth. Fuel UI and OSTF relies only on *public* VIP.
> >>>> So we can keep only *public* VIP, and do not assign / show others.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Check number of IP addresses wherever it is possible to "spoil"
> network
> >>>>> configuration: when a role get’s assigned to a node, when network
> >>>>> changes or network templates are applied.
> >>>>
> >>>> It won't work that way. What if you enable plugin when all roles are
> >>>> assigned? What if you change networks, and now it's not enough IPs? Or
> >>>> what if enable plugin that requires 5 VIPs in public network by
> >>>> default, and it's not enough. But by using network templates you
> >>>> assign this netrole to management network?
> >>>>
> >>>> From what I can say the proposed approach requires to put checks
> >>>> here-and-there around the code. Let's do not overcomplicate things
> >>>> without real need.
> >>>>
> >>>> So let me share my thoughts regarding this issue.
> >>>>
> >>>> * We shouldn't *allocate* VIPs when we make GET request on network
> >>>> configuration handler. It should return only *already allocated* VIPs
> >>>> and no more.
> >>>> * VIP allocation should be performed when we run deployment.
> >>>> * Before deployment checks should fail, if there's not enough VIPs or
> >>>> other resources. So users fix them, and try again.
> >>>> * Both Fuel UI and OSTF needs VIPs only when cluster is deployed, and
> >>>> it's safe to return allocated VIPs on that stage.
> >>>>
> >>>> So what do you think guys?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Igor
> >>>>
> >>>> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 5:25 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko <m...@romcheg.me>
> wrote:
> >>>>> Hi folks!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I’ve been discussing several bugs [1-3] with some folks and noticed
> that they share the same root cause which is that network serialization
> fails, if there’s not enough IP addresses in all available ranges of one of
> the available networks to assign them to all VIPs. There are several
> possible solutions for this issue:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a. Not assign addresses to VIPs is a network configuration is being
> serialized for API output.
> >>>>> A lot of external tools and modules, i. e., OSTF, rely on that
> information so this relatively small change in Nailgun will require big
> cross-components changes. Therefore this change can only be done as a
> feature but it seems to be the way this issue must be fixed.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> b. Leave some VIPs without IP addresses
> >>>>> If network configuration is generated for API output it is possible
> to leave some VIPs without IP addresses assigned. This will only create
> more mess around Nailgun and bring more issues that it will resolve.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> c. Check number of IP addresses wherever it is possible to "spoil"
> network configuration: when a role get’s assigned to a node, when network
> changes or network templates are applied.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The proposal is to follow [c] as a fast solution and file a
> blueprint for [a]. Opinions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1487996
> >>>>> 2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1500394
> >>>>> 3 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1504572
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - romcheg
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> >>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>>>> Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> >>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>>> Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>> Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>>
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to