On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:50 AM Han Zhou <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 2:45 AM <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > From: Numan Siddique <[email protected]>
> >
> > This patch adds the tables - 'HA_Chassis_Group' and 'HA_Chassis' in
> > both OVN Northbound and Southbound DBs to support generic HA Chassis
> > groups in OVN. CMS can create a group of HA chassis with the priorities
> > assigned to each chassis in the group. An HA chassis group can be
> associated to
> > a distributed logical router port. An upcoming patch will make
> > use of it while supporting 'external'* logical ports.
> >
> > HA chassis group is similar to the existing gateway chassis support in
> > OVN which is used by the distributed gateway router ports.
> > This patch tries to abstract this so that, the HA chassis support
> > can be leveraged by not just distributed gateway router ports.
> >
> > If a logical router port has a set of gateway chassis associated to
> > it, ovn-northd will create HA chassis group in Southbound
> > DB and add these gateway chassis to this group. ovn-northd would still
> create
> > gateway chassis in Southbound DB as ovn-controller still doesn't support
> > using the HA chassis group.
> >
> > Next patch in the series will add the support in ovn-controller to
> > make use of HA chassis group instead of gateway chassis. The patch
> following
> > that will delete creation of gateway chassis in Southbound DB.
> >
> > HA_Chasss_Group table in Southbound DB has a column - 'ref_chassis'.
> > This column is used to store the list of chassis which references the
> > HA chassis group. This information will be used by ovn-controller in an
> > upcoming patch to establish BFD sessions with the required chassis.
> >
> > Suppose if there is an HA chassis group - 'hagrp1' in the Southbound
> > DB and it has HA chasiss list - ha1, ha2 and ha3 and this HA chassis
> > group is used by a distributed logical router port, then ovn-northd
> > will update the 'ref_chassis' with the list of chassis which has claimed
> > all the logical switch ports which are connected to the logical router
> > which has this distributed logical router port.
> >
>
> I haven't finished the detailed review, but a concern for the design
> here. It seems the benefit of the *group* is to be able to create it
> once and reused by different logical router ports (or external ports).
> However, the best practice (at least ours) is to distribute logical
> router ports evenly on all available gateway chassises, which means
> from different lrp's point of view, the priority of each gateway
> chassis is different. E.g. there are 2 GWs as a HA group (gw1, gw2),
> lrp1 uses gw1 as active (gw1 - priority 2, gw2 - priority 1) and lrp2
> uses gw2 as active (gw1 - priority 1, gw2 - priority 2). I understand
> that the use case for external ports may be different, since as we
> discussed in your earlier patch reviews that it is better to have only
> one dedicated node to host all external ports to avoid MAC flapping
> problem, so the HA group does simplify the external port HA support
> from CMS point of view. However for gateway scenario, to use the HA
> group while balancing the gateway load, we will have to create
> multiple HA groups just to assign different priority combinations,
> which becomes much more complex and inconvenient comparing with
> current gateway_chassis implementation (without group). Do you have
> any thoughts on this?
>
Yes. I thought about this.
With the existing gateway_chassis approach, CMS would do something like
****
ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lr0-p1 gw1 20
ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lr0-p1 gw2 30
ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lr0-p2 gw1 30
ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lr0-p2 gw2 20
*****
With the proposed approach it would be something like
*****
ovn-nbctl ha-chassis-group-add hagrp1
ovn-nbctl ha-chassis-group-add-chassis hagrp1 gw1 20
ovn-nbctl ha-chassis-group-add-chassis hagrp1 gw2 30
ovn-nbctl set logical_router_port lr0-p1 ha_chassis_group=hagrp1
ovn-nbctl ha-chassis-group-add hagrp2
ovn-nbctl ha-chassis-group-add-chassis hagrp2 gw1 30
ovn-nbctl ha-chassis-group-add-chassis hagrp2 gw2 20
ovn-nbctl set logical_router_port lr0-p2 ha_chassis_group=hagrp2
*****
I agree that from CMS perspective, it requires a bit more of work.
Is that a concern ?
The proposed solution is completely backward compatible. CMS can still
create
gateway_chassis. ovn-northd internally creates ha_chassis_group in
Southbound DB corresponding
to the set of gateway_chassis associated to a logical rotuter port.
If CMS does the below
****
ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lr0-p1 gw1 20
ovn-nbctl lrp-set-gateway-chassis lr0-p1 gw2 30
****
ovn-northd will create one ha_chassis_group in SB DB with the name "lr0-p1"
and add 2 ha chassis to this group
and associate this group to Port_Binding.Ha_Chassis_Group.
We have few options here
1. Allow CMS to use either of the approaches but deprecate the usage of
gateway_chassis in NB DB (which is the proposed solution)
2. Allow CMS to use either of the approaches. So we will not deprecate
the usage of gateway_chassis in NB DB.
3. Don't use ha_chassis_group in NB DB for distributed logical router
ports. Internally ovn-northd will create ha_chassis_group in SB DB. So that
HA implementation in ovn-controller is simple and generic.
Regardless of any approach we take, I think it would be better in SB DB to
use HA_Chassis_Group for both logical router ports and logical switch ports
of type 'external'.
My preference would be take (2).
Please let me know your thoughts on this.
Thanks
Numan
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
