Got it. Networking-Ovn can be fixed to follow the same logic in ovn-controller(8) to configure “inactivity_probe” interval.
Meanwhile, I still think having Transport level keepavlie is another good option for applications that don’t want to use openflow keep alive. Thanks. Hexin On 3/6/17, 2:11 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote: >I don't know about the plugin, someone else will have to help with that. > >On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 09:59:06PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: >> How about from neutron networking-ovn plugin connecting to both northbound >> and southbound db? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Hexin >> >> >> >> On 3/6/17, 12:56 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >It already is, see ovn-controller(8). Note that ovn-controller only >> >connects to the southbound database. >> > >> >On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 07:16:51PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: >> >> Fair comment. In that case, is there any plan in making "inactivity >> >> probe" interval configurable in ovn north and south dub connection? >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> >> Hexin >> >> >> >> > On Mar 6, 2017, at 10:59 AM, Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > If the application is extremely slow, then the connection is effectively >> >> > dead, and we might as well drop it anyway. >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 06:53:51PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: >> >> >> Hi Ben, >> >> >> >> >> >> TCP keep alive gives a good alternative to use cases where there is no >> >> >> firewall or proxy concern. Transport level keep alive is good enough >> >> >> for ovsdb to determine if connection is alive or not, without worrying >> >> >> if application is slow (or extremely slow) in open flow echo reply. >> >> >> >> >> >> Can we working on pushing this into ovs release? >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> >> >> Hexin >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 3/2/17, 3:57 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We used application-level echo request and replies instead, because >> >> >>> they >> >> >>> are reliable even if a TCP connection passes through a firewall or >> >> >>> proxy >> >> >>> that does not properly pass through TCP keepalives. >> >> >>> >> >> >>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:48:04PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: >> >> >>>> Hi Ben, >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> What is the reason that it is not getting to the main release? This >> >> >>>> seems the right keep alive mechanism for neutron to talk to ovn >> >> >>>> database, if they are not running on the same host/container and >> >> >>>> would have to use tcp as the transport. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Thanks. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> Hexin >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>>> On 3/2/17, 3:45 PM, "Ben Pfaff" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 11:43:01PM +0000, Hexin Wang wrote: >> >> >>>>>> I have a question on the following patch that use TCP keep alive >> >> >>>>>> for ovsdb connection. >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-dev/2011-April/251891.html >> >> >>>>>> >> >> >>>>>> Did this patch go into ovs main release? >> >> >>>>> >> >> >>>>> No. _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
