You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com> on 2014/03/05 21:20:49 UTC
Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps
2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
-----------------------------------------------------------
Review request for cloudstack.
Repository: cloudstack-git
Description
-------
Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my intentions to the community to review and comment.
Diffs
-----
core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
Testing
-------
None, yet still coding
Thanks,
Karl Harris
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Sebastien Goasguen <ru...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review79002
-----------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for submitting your CloudStack contribution through review board. After discussion on the dev@cloudstack.apache.org the community decided to close down review board and start accepting contributiong through GitHub pull requests. We have been using GH PR for several months now and the process is better than review board.
We will keep Review Board open for another week to give you time to migrate your patch to a github PR if you wish. After that time, your patch will no longer be viewable (even though it will not be deleted).
Please consider submitting a pull request.
Great instructions are available at:
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md
Thank you very much for your time and your contribution to Apache CloudStack, we hope that using this new process will encourage you to do more.
- Sebastien Goasguen
On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for cloudstack.
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my intentions to the community to review and comment.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> None, yet still coding
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl Harris
>
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>.
Daan,
Much clearer response, Thanks.
Be Well.
Karl
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> H Karl, it doesn't appear so to me. My point was that keepalive should
> run over any interface that needs to be guarded. This menas all the
> guestnetworks, the optional private gateway network and the management
> and possibly even the public interface.
>
> maybe I was a little short on words describing this.
>
> Daan
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>
> wrote:
> > Daan,
> >
> > I appears your response was truncated.
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> One answer inline...
> >>
> >> mobile bilingual spell checker used
> >>
> >> Op 24 apr. 2014 16:54 schreef "Karl Harris" <karl.harris@sungardas.com
> >:
> >> ....
> >> > A related question is should the vrr
> >> > protocol<
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Router_Redundancy_Protocol
> >> >
> >> > used
> >> > by Keepalived <http://www.keepalived.org/> be passed on the
> Cloudstack
> >> > Management network or an isolated network between the master and
> >> > backup router?
> >> On all the networks that should be served redundantly, e.g. all.
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Daan Hoogland <
> daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Sounds like a single guru should do the job.
> >> > > Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that
> the
> >> > > guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For
> a
> >> > > certain type of network design a admin may already know where the
> >> > > routers should be deployed and in that case it makes no sense to let
> >> > > the guru do any calculations on that. The admin should be able to
> >> > > specify it with tags or the likes. Of course the criteria you
> mention
> >> > > must not conflict but I think it makes sense to have a admin created
> >> > > offering override the standard algorithm.
> >> > >
> >> > > regards,
> >> > > Daan
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Karl Harris <
> >> karl.harris@sungardas.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > > The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
> >> > > > Deployment for RvR
> >> > > >
> >> > > > - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical
> devices
> >> as
> >> > > far
> >> > > > apart as possible. It would try different pod, different
> cluster,
> >> > > different
> >> > > > storage, different host first, until there is none of above
> >> condition
> >> > > can
> >> > > > be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru
> >> class(es)
> >> > > > the most appropriate place to put this code?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host
> entities or
> >> a
> >> > > > single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Karl
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <
> karl.harris@sungard.com
> >> >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> >> > > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> >> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Review request for cloudstack.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Repository: cloudstack-git
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Description
> >> > > >> -------
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as
> pseudo
> >> code
> >> > > >> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I
> >> get
> >> > > too
> >> > > >> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA
> >> CloudStack-764
> >> > > >> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd
> >> publish
> >> > > my
> >> > > >> intentions to the community to review and comment.
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Diffs
> >> > > >> -----
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> >> > > >> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> >> > > >> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >>
> >>
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> >> > > >> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> >> > > >> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> >> > > >> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Testing
> >> > > >> -------
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> None, yet still coding
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Thanks,
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >> Karl Harris
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Daan
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
H Karl, it doesn't appear so to me. My point was that keepalive should
run over any interface that needs to be guarded. This menas all the
guestnetworks, the optional private gateway network and the management
and possibly even the public interface.
maybe I was a little short on words describing this.
Daan
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 9:49 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com> wrote:
> Daan,
>
> I appears your response was truncated.
>
> Karl
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> One answer inline...
>>
>> mobile bilingual spell checker used
>>
>> Op 24 apr. 2014 16:54 schreef "Karl Harris" <ka...@sungardas.com>:
>> ....
>> > A related question is should the vrr
>> > protocol<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Router_Redundancy_Protocol
>> >
>> > used
>> > by Keepalived <http://www.keepalived.org/> be passed on the Cloudstack
>> > Management network or an isolated network between the master and
>> > backup router?
>> On all the networks that should be served redundantly, e.g. all.
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> > > Sounds like a single guru should do the job.
>> > > Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that the
>> > > guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For a
>> > > certain type of network design a admin may already know where the
>> > > routers should be deployed and in that case it makes no sense to let
>> > > the guru do any calculations on that. The admin should be able to
>> > > specify it with tags or the likes. Of course the criteria you mention
>> > > must not conflict but I think it makes sense to have a admin created
>> > > offering override the standard algorithm.
>> > >
>> > > regards,
>> > > Daan
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Karl Harris <
>> karl.harris@sungardas.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
>> > > > Deployment for RvR
>> > > >
>> > > > - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices
>> as
>> > > far
>> > > > apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster,
>> > > different
>> > > > storage, different host first, until there is none of above
>> condition
>> > > can
>> > > > be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru
>> class(es)
>> > > > the most appropriate place to put this code?
>> > > >
>> > > > Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host entities or
>> a
>> > > > single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
>> > > >
>> > > > Karl
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com
>> >
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >>
>> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> > > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
>> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Review request for cloudstack.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Repository: cloudstack-git
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Description
>> > > >> -------
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo
>> code
>> > > >> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I
>> get
>> > > too
>> > > >> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA
>> CloudStack-764
>> > > >> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd
>> publish
>> > > my
>> > > >> intentions to the community to review and comment.
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Diffs
>> > > >> -----
>> > > >>
>> > > >> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
>> > > >> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>>
>> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
>> > > >> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>>
>> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
>> > > >> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
>> > > >> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
>> > > >> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Testing
>> > > >> -------
>> > > >>
>> > > >> None, yet still coding
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Thanks,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Karl Harris
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Daan
>> > >
>> > >
>>
--
Daan
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>.
Daan,
I appears your response was truncated.
Karl
On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:41 PM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> One answer inline...
>
> mobile bilingual spell checker used
>
> Op 24 apr. 2014 16:54 schreef "Karl Harris" <ka...@sungardas.com>:
> ....
> > A related question is should the vrr
> > protocol<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Router_Redundancy_Protocol
> >
> > used
> > by Keepalived <http://www.keepalived.org/> be passed on the Cloudstack
> > Management network or an isolated network between the master and
> > backup router?
> On all the networks that should be served redundantly, e.g. all.
>
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> > > Sounds like a single guru should do the job.
> > > Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that the
> > > guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For a
> > > certain type of network design a admin may already know where the
> > > routers should be deployed and in that case it makes no sense to let
> > > the guru do any calculations on that. The admin should be able to
> > > specify it with tags or the likes. Of course the criteria you mention
> > > must not conflict but I think it makes sense to have a admin created
> > > offering override the standard algorithm.
> > >
> > > regards,
> > > Daan
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Karl Harris <
> karl.harris@sungardas.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
> > > > Deployment for RvR
> > > >
> > > > - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices
> as
> > > far
> > > > apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster,
> > > different
> > > > storage, different host first, until there is none of above
> condition
> > > can
> > > > be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru
> class(es)
> > > > the most appropriate place to put this code?
> > > >
> > > > Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host entities or
> a
> > > > single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
> > > >
> > > > Karl
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <karl.harris@sungard.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> > > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> > > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> > > >>
> > > >> Review request for cloudstack.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Repository: cloudstack-git
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Description
> > > >> -------
> > > >>
> > > >> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo
> code
> > > >> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I
> get
> > > too
> > > >> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA
> CloudStack-764
> > > >> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd
> publish
> > > my
> > > >> intentions to the community to review and comment.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Diffs
> > > >> -----
> > > >>
> > > >> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> > > >> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
>
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> > > >> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
>
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> > > >> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> > > >> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> > > >> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
> > > >>
> > > >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Testing
> > > >> -------
> > > >>
> > > >> None, yet still coding
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >>
> > > >> Karl Harris
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Daan
> > >
> > >
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
One answer inline...
mobile bilingual spell checker used
Op 24 apr. 2014 16:54 schreef "Karl Harris" <ka...@sungardas.com>:
....
> A related question is should the vrr
> protocol<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Router_Redundancy_Protocol>
> used
> by Keepalived <http://www.keepalived.org/> be passed on the Cloudstack
> Management network or an isolated network between the master and
> backup router?
On all the networks that should be served redundantly, e.g. all.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com
>wrote:
>
> > Sounds like a single guru should do the job.
> > Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that the
> > guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For a
> > certain type of network design a admin may already know where the
> > routers should be deployed and in that case it makes no sense to let
> > the guru do any calculations on that. The admin should be able to
> > specify it with tags or the likes. Of course the criteria you mention
> > must not conflict but I think it makes sense to have a admin created
> > offering override the standard algorithm.
> >
> > regards,
> > Daan
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>
> > wrote:
> > > The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
> > > Deployment for RvR
> > >
> > > - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices as
> > far
> > > apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster,
> > different
> > > storage, different host first, until there is none of above
condition
> > can
> > > be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru
class(es)
> > > the most appropriate place to put this code?
> > >
> > > Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host entities or
a
> > > single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> > >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> > >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> > >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> > >>
> > >> Review request for cloudstack.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Repository: cloudstack-git
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Description
> > >> -------
> > >>
> > >> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo
code
> > >> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get
> > too
> > >> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA
CloudStack-764
> > >> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd
publish
> > my
> > >> intentions to the community to review and comment.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Diffs
> > >> -----
> > >>
> > >> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> > >> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> > >>
> > >>
> >
plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> > >> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> > >>
> > >>
> >
plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> > >> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> > >> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> > >> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
> > >>
> > >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Testing
> > >> -------
> > >>
> > >> None, yet still coding
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >> Karl Harris
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Daan
> >
> >
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>.
Using the Cloudstack definition of Network
Service<http://www.slideshare.net/kkitase/3-networking-cloudstack-developer-day>as
a foundation my question is: Should the VPC Virtual Redundant Router
be
considered a Network Service?
I'm conflicted. The user can turn on redundancy however the redundant
functionality is really a type of router, not a L2-L7 network function.
If not, should the implementation be implemented as an additional router
(virtual device, separate router vm template image, etc) or additional
functionality (the ability to provide redundant services
without L2-L7 knowing about it) to the existing virtual router modifying
the existing router vm template?
A related question is should the vrr
protocol<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_Router_Redundancy_Protocol>
used
by Keepalived <http://www.keepalived.org/> be passed on the Cloudstack
Management network or an isolated network between the master and
backup router?
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 5:57 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Sounds like a single guru should do the job.
> Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that the
> guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For a
> certain type of network design a admin may already know where the
> routers should be deployed and in that case it makes no sense to let
> the guru do any calculations on that. The admin should be able to
> specify it with tags or the likes. Of course the criteria you mention
> must not conflict but I think it makes sense to have a admin created
> offering override the standard algorithm.
>
> regards,
> Daan
>
> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>
> wrote:
> > The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
> > Deployment for RvR
> >
> > - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices as
> far
> > apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster,
> different
> > storage, different host first, until there is none of above condition
> can
> > be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
> >
> >
> >
> > Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru class(es)
> > the most appropriate place to put this code?
> >
> > Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host entities or a
> > single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
> >
> > Karl
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Review request for cloudstack.
> >>
> >>
> >> Repository: cloudstack-git
> >>
> >>
> >> Description
> >> -------
> >>
> >> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code
> >> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get
> too
> >> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764
> >> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish
> my
> >> intentions to the community to review and comment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Diffs
> >> -----
> >>
> >> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> >> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> >>
> >>
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> >> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> >>
> >>
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> >> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> >> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> >> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
> >>
> >> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
> >>
> >>
> >> Testing
> >> -------
> >>
> >> None, yet still coding
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Karl Harris
> >>
> >>
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Sounds like a single guru should do the job.
Also I would think of some offerings that contain affinity so that the
guru has a guideline as to where to deploy the pair of routers. For a
certain type of network design a admin may already know where the
routers should be deployed and in that case it makes no sense to let
the guru do any calculations on that. The admin should be able to
specify it with tags or the likes. Of course the criteria you mention
must not conflict but I think it makes sense to have a admin created
offering override the standard algorithm.
regards,
Daan
On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com> wrote:
> The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
> Deployment for RvR
>
> - Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices as far
> apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster, different
> storage, different host first, until there is none of above condition can
> be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
>
>
>
> Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru class(es)
> the most appropriate place to put this code?
>
> Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host entities or a
> single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Review request for cloudstack.
>>
>>
>> Repository: cloudstack-git
>>
>>
>> Description
>> -------
>>
>> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code
>> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too
>> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764
>> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my
>> intentions to the community to review and comment.
>>
>>
>> Diffs
>> -----
>>
>> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
>> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
>>
>> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
>> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
>>
>> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
>> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
>> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
>> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>>
>> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>>
>>
>> Testing
>> -------
>>
>> None, yet still coding
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Karl Harris
>>
>>
--
Daan
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungardas.com>.
The functional spec for Redundant Virtual Router for VPC's states:
Deployment for RvR
- Mgmt server would try to deploy two VR in the physical devices as far
apart as possible. It would try different pod, different cluster, different
storage, different host first, until there is none of above condition can
be met, it would deploy both of them in the same host.
Is a design method in a PrivateRedundantNetworkGuru NetworkGuru class(es)
the most appropriate place to put this code?
Separate Guru's for each of the pod,cluster,storage, host entities or a
single Guru that "designs" using the above criteria?
Karl
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com> wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Review request for cloudstack.
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code
> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too
> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764
> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my
> intentions to the community to review and comment.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
>
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
>
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> None, yet still coding
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl Harris
>
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Rohit Yadav <bh...@apache.org>.
> On March 6, 2014, 10:09 a.m., daan Hoogland wrote:
> > Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is redundant or not.
>
> Karl Harris wrote:
> The description below is what my initial code is working toward:
>
> Turn on VPC redundancy and allow user to do CRUD to the networks just as it is now.( Create guest networks:NICS, etc; Read guest networks:NICS,etc; Update guest networks:NICS,etc; Delete guest networks:NICS,etc) Because redundancy is turned on, the master AND backup router VM's, as well as services conntrackd and keepalived running on those router VM's are part of the creating, reading, updating and deleting of the guest networks.
>
> I am making these changes IN ADDITION to the existing functionality. I do not want to break what exists when the redundant routing to VPC's is added, so yes, in that sense I am trying to keep VPC's and standalone networks aligned.
>
> Currently, in a VPC, a SINGLE router is available without redundant routers. In a VPC, guest networks can be created, read, updated, deleted (CRUD) but without any redundancy only one router VM needs to be updated.
>
> With redundancy in VPC's both a master and backup router VM's need to be changed as well as supporting services conntrackd and keepalived need to be (re)configured when guest networks are created, read, updated and deleted.
>
> In contrast to VPC's the CloudStack standalone (public) networks currently offer a redundant network topology which is static so the redundant topology is created once. If CRUD changes need to be made the routers are deleted and created again with the changed configuration; individual networks are never created or deleted.
>
> A bit more detail:
>
> I understand redundancy is either in the VPC or not. In other words ALL guest networks within a VPC either have a redundant path or they do not.
>
> Currently there is CRUD for VPC guest networks, you can create, read, update and delete a guest network in a VPC, however VPC's do NOT have the ability to offer a redundant path to the guest networks.
>
> My additions to the code are an initial attempt to adapt the existing network CRUD functionality to a VPC which has a redundant path for all the guest networks.
>
> When the VPC has redundancy turned on and one creates, reads, updates or deletes a guest network, both the master and backup router configuration need to be altered based on what is being changed. When the VPC has redundancy turned on the conntrackd and keepalived services need to be reconfigured and possibly stopped and started when a guest network create, update or delete takes place.
Any update on this? Is this valid, needs some work, else advise if we should close it and hope for a new patch or pull request?
- Rohit
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for cloudstack.
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my intentions to the community to review and comment.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> None, yet still coding
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl Harris
>
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier
Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>.
> On March 6, 2014, 10:09 a.m., daan Hoogland wrote:
> > Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is redundant or not.
The description below is what my initial code is working toward:
Turn on VPC redundancy and allow user to do CRUD to the networks just as it is now.( Create guest networks:NICS, etc; Read guest networks:NICS,etc; Update guest networks:NICS,etc; Delete guest networks:NICS,etc) Because redundancy is turned on, the master AND backup router VM's, as well as services conntrackd and keepalived running on those router VM's are part of the creating, reading, updating and deleting of the guest networks.
I am making these changes IN ADDITION to the existing functionality. I do not want to break what exists when the redundant routing to VPC's is added, so yes, in that sense I am trying to keep VPC's and standalone networks aligned.
Currently, in a VPC, a SINGLE router is available without redundant routers. In a VPC, guest networks can be created, read, updated, deleted (CRUD) but without any redundancy only one router VM needs to be updated.
With redundancy in VPC's both a master and backup router VM's need to be changed as well as supporting services conntrackd and keepalived need to be (re)configured when guest networks are created, read, updated and deleted.
In contrast to VPC's the CloudStack standalone (public) networks currently offer a redundant network topology which is static so the redundant topology is created once. If CRUD changes need to be made the routers are deleted and created again with the changed configuration; individual networks are never created or deleted.
A bit more detail:
I understand redundancy is either in the VPC or not. In other words ALL guest networks within a VPC either have a redundant path or they do not.
Currently there is CRUD for VPC guest networks, you can create, read, update and delete a guest network in a VPC, however VPC's do NOT have the ability to offer a redundant path to the guest networks.
My additions to the code are an initial attempt to adapt the existing network CRUD functionality to a VPC which has a redundant path for all the guest networks.
When the VPC has redundancy turned on and one creates, reads, updates or deletes a guest network, both the master and backup router configuration need to be altered based on what is being changed. When the VPC has redundancy turned on the conntrackd and keepalived services need to be reconfigured and possibly stopped and started when a guest network create, update or delete takes place.
- Karl
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
-----------------------------------------------------------
On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for cloudstack.
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my intentions to the community to review and comment.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> None, yet still coding
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl Harris
>
>
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Karl, thanks. This is very clear and I was missing something entirely.
I misled myself by interpreting CRUD as db action exclusively. You
have cleared my mind and make a lot of sense.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com> wrote:
> The description below is what my initial code is working toward:
>
> Turn on VPC redundancy and allow user to do CRUD to the networks just as it
> is now.( Create guest networks:NICS, etc; Read guest networks:NICS,etc;
> Update guest networks:NICS,etc; Delete guest networks:NICS,etc) Because
> redundancy is turned on, the master AND backup router VM's, as well as
> services conntrackd and keepalived running on those router VM's are part of
> the creating, reading, updating and deleting of the guest networks.
>
> I am making these changes IN ADDITION to the existing functionality. I do
> not want to break what exists when the redundant routing to VPC's is added,
> so yes, in that sense I am trying to keep VPC's and standalone networks
> aligned.
>
> Currently, in a VPC, a SINGLE router is available without redundant
> routers. In a VPC, guest networks can be created, read, updated, deleted
> (CRUD) but without any redundancy only one router VM needs to be updated.
>
> With redundancy in VPC's both a master and backup router VM's need to be
> changed as well as supporting services conntrackd and keepalived need to be
> (re)configured when guest networks are created, read, updated and deleted.
>
> In contrast to VPC's the CloudStack standalone (public) networks currently
> offer a redundant network topology which is static so the redundant
> topology is created once. If CRUD changes need to be made the routers are
> deleted and created again with the changed configuration; individual
> networks are never created or deleted.
>
> A bit more detail:
>
> I understand redundancy is either in the VPC or not. In other words ALL
> guest networks within a VPC either have a redundant path or they do not.
>
> Currently there is CRUD for VPC guest networks, you can create, read,
> update and delete a guest network in a VPC, however VPC's do NOT have the
> ability to offer a redundant path to the guest networks.
>
> My additions to the code are an initial attempt to adapt the existing
> network CRUD functionality to a VPC which has a redundant path for all the
> guest networks.
>
> When the VPC has redundancy turned on and one creates, reads, updates or
> deletes a guest network, both the master and backup router configuration
> need to be altered based on what is being changed. When the VPC has
> redundancy turned on the conntrackd and keepalived services need to be
> reconfigured and possibly stopped and started when a guest network create,
> update or delete takes place.
>
> Let me know if the above is a bit clearer.
>
>
>
> Karl
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Not very much, unless i am missing something. The redundancy can not
>> be enabled on a per network basis as the router needs to be in the air
>> twice anyway. I would not like to save data that has no use. What CRUD
>> are you thinking of? Or are you maybe putting some effort into keeping
>> VPC and standalone networks alligned?
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Redundancy will be on a vpc basis. I'm attempting to add CRUD
>> functionality
>> > on a network basis. Does this make sense?
>> >
>> > On Thursday, March 6, 2014, daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
>> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would
>> >> seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is
>> >> redundant or not.
>> >>
>> >> - daan Hoogland
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>> >>
>> >> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> >> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
>> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Review request for cloudstack.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Repository: cloudstack-git
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Description
>> >> > -------
>> >> >
>> >> > Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo
>> code
>> >> > comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get
>> too
>> >> > far along with making the changes required for this JIRA
>> CloudStack-764
>> >> > nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd
>> publish my
>> >> > intentions to the community to review and comment.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Diffs
>> >> > -----
>> >> >
>> >> > core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
>> >> > 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
>> >> > 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
>> >> > 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
>> >> > systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
>> >> > e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>> >> >
>> >> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Testing
>> >> > -------
>> >> >
>> >> > None, yet still coding
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Karl Harris
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karl O. Harris
>> > Cloud Software Engineer
>> > Sungard Availability Services
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daan
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Karl O. Harris
> Cloud Software Engineer
> Sungard Availability Services
--
Daan
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>.
The description below is what my initial code is working toward:
Turn on VPC redundancy and allow user to do CRUD to the networks just as it
is now.( Create guest networks:NICS, etc; Read guest networks:NICS,etc;
Update guest networks:NICS,etc; Delete guest networks:NICS,etc) Because
redundancy is turned on, the master AND backup router VM's, as well as
services conntrackd and keepalived running on those router VM's are part of
the creating, reading, updating and deleting of the guest networks.
I am making these changes IN ADDITION to the existing functionality. I do
not want to break what exists when the redundant routing to VPC's is added,
so yes, in that sense I am trying to keep VPC's and standalone networks
aligned.
Currently, in a VPC, a SINGLE router is available without redundant
routers. In a VPC, guest networks can be created, read, updated, deleted
(CRUD) but without any redundancy only one router VM needs to be updated.
With redundancy in VPC's both a master and backup router VM's need to be
changed as well as supporting services conntrackd and keepalived need to be
(re)configured when guest networks are created, read, updated and deleted.
In contrast to VPC's the CloudStack standalone (public) networks currently
offer a redundant network topology which is static so the redundant
topology is created once. If CRUD changes need to be made the routers are
deleted and created again with the changed configuration; individual
networks are never created or deleted.
A bit more detail:
I understand redundancy is either in the VPC or not. In other words ALL
guest networks within a VPC either have a redundant path or they do not.
Currently there is CRUD for VPC guest networks, you can create, read,
update and delete a guest network in a VPC, however VPC's do NOT have the
ability to offer a redundant path to the guest networks.
My additions to the code are an initial attempt to adapt the existing
network CRUD functionality to a VPC which has a redundant path for all the
guest networks.
When the VPC has redundancy turned on and one creates, reads, updates or
deletes a guest network, both the master and backup router configuration
need to be altered based on what is being changed. When the VPC has
redundancy turned on the conntrackd and keepalived services need to be
reconfigured and possibly stopped and started when a guest network create,
update or delete takes place.
Let me know if the above is a bit clearer.
Karl
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Not very much, unless i am missing something. The redundancy can not
> be enabled on a per network basis as the router needs to be in the air
> twice anyway. I would not like to save data that has no use. What CRUD
> are you thinking of? Or are you maybe putting some effort into keeping
> VPC and standalone networks alligned?
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>
> wrote:
> > Redundancy will be on a vpc basis. I'm attempting to add CRUD
> functionality
> > on a network basis. Does this make sense?
> >
> > On Thursday, March 6, 2014, daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> >> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
> >> -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would
> >> seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is
> >> redundant or not.
> >>
> >> - daan Hoogland
> >>
> >>
> >> On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
> >> >
> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> >> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> >> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Review request for cloudstack.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Repository: cloudstack-git
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Description
> >> > -------
> >> >
> >> > Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo
> code
> >> > comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get
> too
> >> > far along with making the changes required for this JIRA
> CloudStack-764
> >> > nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd
> publish my
> >> > intentions to the community to review and comment.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Diffs
> >> > -----
> >> >
> >> > core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> >> > 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> >> >
> >> >
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> >> > 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> >> >
> >> >
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> >> > 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> >> > systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> >> > e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
> >> >
> >> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Testing
> >> > -------
> >> >
> >> > None, yet still coding
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Karl Harris
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karl O. Harris
> > Cloud Software Engineer
> > Sungard Availability Services
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Daan
>
>
--
Karl O. Harris
Cloud Software Engineer
Sungard Availability Services
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
Not very much, unless i am missing something. The redundancy can not
be enabled on a per network basis as the router needs to be in the air
twice anyway. I would not like to save data that has no use. What CRUD
are you thinking of? Or are you maybe putting some effort into keeping
VPC and standalone networks alligned?
On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com> wrote:
> Redundancy will be on a vpc basis. I'm attempting to add CRUD functionality
> on a network basis. Does this make sense?
>
> On Thursday, March 6, 2014, daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would
>> seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is
>> redundant or not.
>>
>> - daan Hoogland
>>
>>
>> On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
>> >
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
>> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
>> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Review request for cloudstack.
>> >
>> >
>> > Repository: cloudstack-git
>> >
>> >
>> > Description
>> > -------
>> >
>> > Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code
>> > comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too
>> > far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764
>> > nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my
>> > intentions to the community to review and comment.
>> >
>> >
>> > Diffs
>> > -----
>> >
>> > core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
>> > 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
>> >
>> > plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
>> > 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
>> >
>> > plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
>> > 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
>> > systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
>> > e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>> >
>> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>> >
>> >
>> > Testing
>> > -------
>> >
>> > None, yet still coding
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Karl Harris
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Karl O. Harris
> Cloud Software Engineer
> Sungard Availability Services
>
>
--
Daan
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764
nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by Karl Harris <ka...@sungard.com>.
Redundancy will be on a vpc basis. I'm attempting to add CRUD
functionality on a network basis. Does this make sense?
On Thursday, March 6, 2014, daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would
> seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is
> redundant or not.
>
> - daan Hoogland
>
>
> On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
> >
> >
> > Review request for cloudstack.
> >
> >
> > Repository: cloudstack-git
> >
> >
> > Description
> > -------
> >
> > Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code
> comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too
> far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764
> nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my
> intentions to the community to review and comment.
> >
> >
> > Diffs
> > -----
> >
> > core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java
> 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> >
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java
> 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> >
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java
> 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> > systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh
> e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
> >
> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
> >
> >
> > Testing
> > -------
> >
> > None, yet still coding
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Karl Harris
> >
> >
>
>
--
Karl O. Harris
Cloud Software Engineer
Sungard Availability Services
Re: Review Request 18795: Sanity code review for: JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier
Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC
Posted by daan Hoogland <da...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/#review36352
-----------------------------------------------------------
Are you contemplating redundant routing on a per network basis? It would seem to me that the router, hence the whole vpc with all it networks is redundant or not.
- daan Hoogland
On March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m., Karl Harris wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated March 5, 2014, 8:20 p.m.)
>
>
> Review request for cloudstack.
>
>
> Repository: cloudstack-git
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> Changes/additions to BASH scripts and .java files as well as pseudo code comments. This posting is a sanity check review posting; before I get too far along with making the changes required for this JIRA CloudStack-764 nTier Apps 2.0 : Redundant Virtual Router for VPC I thought I'd publish my intentions to the community to review and comment.
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/SetupGuestNetworkCommand.java 2cf5bf8ffaa2b0df122c69f047ee3f56982267e1
> plugins/hypervisors/vmware/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/vmware/resource/VmwareResource.java 03af0da51b1eec93eb878fd1ebeca2ff2e0802ce
> plugins/hypervisors/xen/src/com/cloud/hypervisor/xen/resource/CitrixResourceBase.java 69b7c9e07c753c0f0c93197a809acfb3399cf555
> systemvm/patches/debian/config/opt/cloud/bin/vpc_guestnw.sh e5da2e096b30f6fdb15226e889517537d04f2e3e
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/18795/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> None, yet still coding
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl Harris
>
>