On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 10:01 AM Dumitru Ceara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
For each LRP, there will be a HA chassis group, and in each group there
will be N chassis. Assume there are X LRPs residing on a specific chassis,
then if the chassis fails, the X LRPs' active chassis needs to be updated,
or equivalently, X HA chassis groups need to be updated. It may be possible
that some LRPs share the same HA chassis group, but I don't know any real
use case that use it that way, because that would end up with all LRPs
active on the same chassis (because they follow the same priority in the
same HA chassis group) and would not provide a good load sharing.
_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-dev
