On 13/01/15 10:18, Sahina Bose wrote: > > On 01/12/2015 06:21 PM, Lior Vernia wrote: >> Hi Sahina! :) >> >> Cool feature, and I think long-awaited by many users. I have a few >> comments: >> >> 1. In the "Add Bricks" dialog, it seems like the "IP Address" field is a >> list box - I presume the items contained there are all IP addresses >> configured on the host's interfaces. >> >> 1. a. May I suggest that this contain network names instead of IP >> addresses? Would be easier for users to think about things (they surely >> remember the meaning of network names, not necessarily of IP addresses). > > >> >> 1. b. If I correctly understood the mock-up, then configuring a "Storage >> Network" role only affects the default entry chosen in the list box. Is >> it really worth the trouble of implementing this added role? It's quite >> different than display/migration roles, which are used to determine what >> IP address to use at a later time (i.e. not when configuring the host), >> when a VM is run/migrated in the cluster. > > > If not for "Storage network" role, how would we default which network to > use. In fact, we are planning to remove the drop down to choose network > from the Add Brick UI, to avoid confusion and just use the network with > this role, if available - otherwise use the host address. (host_address > in vds_static) >
If the list box goes, then yeah, somehow you'll have to mark the network used for gluster traffic, so a role would be good. However, if you keep the list box, any order would be fine (maybe alphabetic with the management network as default?). > Will update page accordingly > > >> >> 1. c. A word of warning: sometimes a host interface's IP address is >> missing in the engine - this usually happens when they're configured for >> the first time with DHCP, and the setup networks command returns before >> an IP address is allocated (this can later be resolved by refreshing >> host capabilities, there's a button for that). So when displaying items >> in the list box, you should really check that an IP address exists for >> each network. >> >> 2. "Storage Network": if you intend to keep this role in the feature (I >> don't think it adds a lot of functionality, see article 1b), it might be >> better to call it "Gluster Network" - otherwise people using virt mode >> might think this network is gonna be used to communicate with other >> types of storage domains. > > > Could this network be reused for other storage needs also. If not, we > can rename it "gluster network" > I don't think there are any current plans to incorporate a "storage network" in 3.6, CCing Allon though. >> >> Yours, Lior. >> >> On 12/01/15 14:00, Sahina Bose wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Please review the feature page for this proposed solution and provide >>> your inputs - http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Select_Network_For_Gluster >>> >>> thanks >>> sahina >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Users mailing list >>> Users@ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users