On 4/13/23 18:26, Han Zhou wrote: >>>> >>>> I suggest a different approach if we want to go ahead and propagate > such >>>> information to the NB: can't we store the "active chassis" information >>>> per Gateway_chassis/HA_Chassis_group instead? That's >>>> O(number-of-chassis) records that we need to update on chassis > failover. >>>> We might even skip this for Gateway_chassis as I understand that this >>>> is the "old" way of configuring things (*). >>>> > What do you mean by O(number-of-chassis) here? If a chassis fails over, we > should update for O(number-of-ports-failed-over-from-the-failure-chasssis), > right? >
Is there ever a reason to have more than "number-of-chassis" Gateway_chassis or HA_Chassis_group records? I thought not. So, if we move the status per Gateway_chassis/HA_Chassis we need to update a smaller number of records than if we track the status per LRP. _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
