Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Thanks Remi for the hint and Daan for pick it up! That is why I like open source software development and this project ;) On 05/03/2017 02:49 PM, Daan Hoogland wrote: > Happy to pick this up, Remi. I'm travelling now but will look at both on > Friday.

Re: Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

​We have been using it quite a bit in production over the last 3+ years. It works pretty well. It is a pretty simple implementation, so it is pretty stable. I know my networking guys have some frustrations with the limitations on the static routes. No overlapping routes and things like that

Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

Hi all, I'm interested to know if anyone is using private gatewyas in production, and what are your experience with it, any undocumented limitations, etc ? I dont see iif t supports vxlans (perhaps will try to test it myself) I really would appreciate any feedback. Thanks, -- Andrija Panić

Re: Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

@sweller: I would be interested in the PG fixes you have done. Anything related to overlapping routes? *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Simon Weller wrote: > We use private gateways extensively with KVM and redundant VRs.

Re: Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

So we manage static routes within our middleware and UI (we don't use the ACS native UI), so I don't think we've experienced this. From: williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will Stevens Sent: Wednesday, May 3,

Re: Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

Interesting. I wonder if the limitations we are seeing are actually a UI artifact and not actually an implementation artifact. I will have to look into that. Thanks... :) *Will STEVENS* Lead Developer On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 11:32 AM, Simon Weller

Re: Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

Thanks everyone for swift comments :) I see (in ACS 4.5 ATM, to be soon upgraded to 4.8) there are some issues when creating (additional) physical networks (with CM), i.e. we set isolation method to be VLAN, but DB field is not written to at all, so when adding PV GTW, ACS fails back to add vlan

Re: Private gateways - experience, anyone really using it ?

We use private gateways extensively with KVM and redundant VRs. We have our own ACS 4.8 branch (https://github.com/myENA/cloudstack/tree/release/ENA-4.8) with quite a number of backported fixes that relate to PGs. As far as I'm aware, vxlan is not supported on PGs today. We would like to see

Re: ovf file parser

Cool. Let me know if you have questions. My instinct is that we probably want to keep the Ova manipulation in the context of vmware since I don't believe it will be used outside that context. Trying to manipulate the ovf files with generic tools may prove to be more complicated to manage going

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Happy to pick this up, Remi. I'm travelling now but will look at both on Friday. Biligual auto correct use. Read at your own risico On 3 May 2017 2:25 pm, "Remi Bergsma" wrote: > Always happy to share, but I won’t have time to work on porting this to > CloudStack

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Always happy to share, but I won’t have time to work on porting this to CloudStack any time soon. Regards, Remi On 03/05/2017, 13:44, "Rohit Yadav" wrote: Hi Remi, thanks for sharing. We would love to have those changes (for 4.9+), looking forward to your pull

Re: help/advise needed: Private gateway vs. new physcial network issue

Ok, thanks, I need to read a bit on tagging networks, first time I encounter this. agent.properties only has 1 guest interface definition ( guest.network.device=bond0.950), so I will see how this behaves... Thanks for input Simon On 3 May 2017 at 23:19, Simon Weller wrote: >

proper place to put migrations

I have created a JIRA bug here that will require the use of a migration to fix. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-9902 What is the most appropriate branch to fork from to submit a PR in this case, and what is the most appropriate migration script to edit (or create a new

Re: help/advise needed: Private gateway vs. new physcial network issue

Andrija, Do you have any network tagging setup for your vpc network offerings that correspond to your zone network tags? From: Andrija Panic Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 3:46 PM To: us...@cloudstack.apache.org;

Re: help/advise needed: Private gateway vs. new physcial network issue

Hi Simon, not at all. We use tags only for storage and compute(service)/disk offerings... But, I just found out, even when I change recird in DB record, change KVM label from bond0.950 to bond0, then disable/enable zone, and even restart mgmt servers, still ACS provision vlan 999 on top of

Re: help/advise needed: Private gateway vs. new physcial network issue

We deploy with 2 physical interfaces. 1 is for vxlan guest networks and the other is a trunk interfaces for public, mgmt and private gateways. We found that tagging was necessary, or the incorrect interface can be selected because both have guest networks.

help/advise needed: Private gateway vs. new physcial network issue

Hi all, I'm trying to to test Private Gateway on our production (actually on DEV first :) ) setup, of ACS 4.5, but I'm hitting some strange issues during actual creation of PV GTW. My setup is the following: ACS 4.5, advanced zone KVM (ubuntu 14) mgmt network: KVM label/name: cloudbr0 sec.

Re: help/advise needed: Private gateway vs. new physcial network issue

I managed to solve it, thanks Simon: Steps, give or take: - add new physical network via CM - enable new physical network via CM - manually define VLAN as isolation method in DB (add new ROW in physical_network_isolation_methods table) - duplicate existing Guest network row from table

Re: ovf file parser

Hi Will, I am improving the multiple disk OVA feature. As part of revamp I am moving out some OVF manipulation code from the vmware hypervisor plugin context to secondary storage component. The existing code was using vim25 and managed objects to query and rewrite the OVF file. I have

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Another reason of slow can be VR configuration(persistent VR configuration design). When one component config apply, whole VR configuration apply is executed. Due to this the VR boot up time will increase. Thanks, Jayapal > On May 3, 2017, at 1:55 PM, Marc-Aurèle Brothier

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Hi Wido, Well for us, it's not a version problem, it's simply a design problem. This VR is very problematic during any upgrade of cloudstack (which I perform every week almost on our platform), same goes for the secondary storage VMs which scans all templates. We've planned on our roadmap to get

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Hi Wido, When we had similar issues last year, we found that for example comparing the iptables rules one-by-one is 1000x slower than simply loading them all at once. Boris rewrote this part in our Cosmic fork, may be worth looking into this again. The PR to CloudStack was merged, but reverted

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Hi, The patches I talked about: 1) Iptables speed improvement https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/1482 Was reverted due to a licensing issue. 2) Passwd speed improvement https://github.com/MissionCriticalCloudOldRepos/cosmic-core/pull/138 By now, these are rather old patches so they

Re: Very slow Virtual Router provisioning with 4.9.2.0

Hi Remi, thanks for sharing. We would love to have those changes (for 4.9+), looking forward to your pull requests. Regards. From: Remi Bergsma Sent: 03 May 2017 16:58:18 To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Very slow Virtual