Re: [ovs-dev] OVSDB Replication: Clarifications required

2017-07-18 Thread Arunkumar Rg
Hi Andy, Please find my response inline: On Tue, Jul 18, 2017 at 12:10 AM, Andy Zhou wrote: > On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Arunkumar Rg > wrote: > > Hi Andy Zhou, > > > > Thanks for looking into this! > > > > Please find my replies inline: > > > >

Re: [ovs-dev] OVSDB Replication: Clarifications required

2017-07-17 Thread Andy Zhou
On Sat, Jul 15, 2017 at 10:58 PM, Arunkumar Rg wrote: > Hi Andy Zhou, > > Thanks for looking into this! > > Please find my replies inline: > > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Andy Zhou wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Arunkumar Rg

Re: [ovs-dev] OVSDB Replication: Clarifications required

2017-07-15 Thread Arunkumar Rg
Hi Andy Zhou, Thanks for looking into this! Please find my replies inline: On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:30 AM, Andy Zhou wrote: > On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Arunkumar Rg > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Got few clarifications on OVSDB replication. Please let

Re: [ovs-dev] OVSDB Replication: Clarifications required

2017-07-10 Thread Andy Zhou
On Tue, Jul 4, 2017 at 10:52 PM, Arunkumar Rg wrote: > Hi, > > Got few clarifications on OVSDB replication. Please let me know your inputs > on it. > > 1. From the ovsdb-server code(main_loop()), it seems that the standby > ovsdb-server becomes 'Active' if the JSONRPC

Re: [ovs-dev] OVSDB Replication: Clarifications required

2017-07-08 Thread Arunkumar Rg
Requesting your time to help on my queries. Thanks, Arun. On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Arunkumar Rg wrote: > Hi, > > Got few clarifications on OVSDB replication. Please let me know your > inputs on it. > > 1. From the ovsdb-server code(main_loop()), it seems that

[ovs-dev] OVSDB Replication: Clarifications required

2017-07-04 Thread Arunkumar Rg
Hi, Got few clarifications on OVSDB replication. Please let me know your inputs on it. 1. From the ovsdb-server code(main_loop()), it seems that the standby ovsdb-server becomes 'Active' if the JSONRPC session with the active-ovsdb-server is not alive. Instead of this behavior, is there a