Livnat, Thanks for your summary. I got comments below.
2012-11-25 18:53, Livnat Peer:
Hi All, We have been discussing $subject for a while and I'd like to summarized what we agreed and disagreed on thus far. The way I see it there are two related discussions: 1. Getting VDSM networking stack to be distribution agnostic. - We are all in agreement that VDSM API should be generic enough to incorporate multiple implementation. (discussed on this thread: Alon's suggestion, Mark's patch for adding support for netcf etc.) - We would like to maintain at least one implementation as the working/up-to-date implementation for our users, this implementation should be distribution agnostic (as we all acknowledge this is an important goal for VDSM). I also think that with the agreement of this community we can choose to change our focus, from time to time, from one implementation to another as we see fit (today it can be OVS+netcf and in a few months we'll use the quantum based implementation if we agree it is better) 2. The second discussion is about persisting the network configuration on the host vs. dynamically retrieving it from a centralized location like the engine. Danken raised a concern that even if going with the dynamic approach the host should persist the management network configuration.
About dynamical retrieving from a centralized location, when will the retrieving start? Just in the very early stage of host booting before network functions? Or after the host startup and in the normal running state of the host? Before retrieving the configuration, how does the host network connecting to the engine? I think we need a basic well known network between hosts and the engine first. Then after the retrieving, hosts should reconfigure the network for later management. However, the timing to retrieve and reconfigure are challenging.
Obviously the second discussion influences the API modeling. Since I think it would be challenging to add support for generic API and change the current implementation to match the dynamic configuration approach simultaneously I suggest we'll focus our efforts on one change at a time. I suggest to have a discussion on the pro's and con's of dynamic configuration and after we get to a consensus around that we can start modeling the generic API. thoughts? comments? Livnat _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
-- --- 舒明 Shu Ming Open Virtualization Engineerning; CSTL, IBM Corp. Tel: 86-10-82451626 Tieline: 9051626 E-mail: shum...@cn.ibm.com or shum...@linux.vnet.ibm.com Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian District, Beijing 100193, PRC _______________________________________________ vdsm-devel mailing list email@example.com https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel