On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 7:24 PM Ben Pfaff <[email protected]> wrote: > What's the effective difference between an OVN deployment with 3 zones, > and a collection of 3 OVN deployments? Is it simply that the 3-zone > deployment shares databases? Is that a significant advantage?
Hi Ben, based on the discussions there are two cases: For completely separated zones (no overlapping) v.s. separate OVN deployments, the difference is that separate OVN deployments requires some sort of federation at a higher layer, so that a single CMS can operate multiple OVN deployments. Of course separate zones in same OVN still requires changes in CMS to operate but the change may be smaller in some cases. For overlapping zones v.s. separate OVN deployments, the difference is more obvious. Separate OVN deployments doesn't allow overlapping. Overlapping zones allows sharing gateways between different groups of hypervisors. If the purpose is only reducing tunnel mesh size, I think it may be better to avoid the zone concept but instead create tunnels (and bfd sessions) on-demand, as discussed here: https://mail.openvswitch.org/pipermail/ovs-discuss/2019-March/048281.html Daniel or other folks please comment if there are other benefit of creating zones. Thanks, Han _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/ovs-discuss
