fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Serg Melikyan <smelikyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had added Neutron and Fuel teams to this e-mail thread: Guys what is your
thoughts on the subject?

We see three possible ways to implement Elastic Applications in Murano:
using Heat & Neutron LBaaS, Heat & AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer
resource and own solution using HAProxy directly (see more details in the
mail-thread).

Previously we was using Heat and AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer
resource, but this way have certain limitations.

Does Fuel team have plans to implement support for Neutron LBaaS any time
soon?

Guys from Heat suggest Neutron LBaaS as a best long-term solution. Neutron
Team - what is your thoughts?


On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Thomas Hervé <therve@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 12:56 PM, Serg Melikyan <smelikyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > Murano has several applications which support scaling via load-balancing,
> > this applications (Internet Information Services Web Farm, ASP.NET
> > Application Web Farm) currently are based on Heat, particularly on
> resource
> > called AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer, that currently does not
> > support specification of any network related parameters.
> >
> > Inability to specify network related params leads to incorrect behavior
> > during deployment in tenants with advanced Quantum deployment
> configuration,
> > like Per-tenant Routers with Private Networks and this makes deployment
> of
> > our * Web Farm applications to fail.
> >
> > We need to resolve issues with our * Web Farm, and make this
> applications to
> > be reference implementation for elastic applications in Murano.
> >
> > This issue may be resolved in three ways: via extending configuration
> > capabilities of AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer, using another
> > implementation of load balancing in Heat - OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer or
> via
> > implementing own load balancing application (that going to balance other
> > apllications), for example based on HAProxy (as all previous ones).
> >
> > Please, respond with your thoughts on the question: "Which
> implementation we
> > should use to resolve issue with our Web Farm applications and why?".
> Below
> > you can find more details about each of the options.
> >
> > AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer
> >
> > AWS::ElasticLoadBalancing::LoadBalancer is Amazon Cloud Formation
> compatible
> > resource that implements load balancer via hard-coded nested stack that
> > deploys and configures HAProxy. This resource requires specific image
> with
> > CFN Tools and specific name F17-x86_64-cfntools available in Glance. It's
> > look like we miss implementation of only one property in this resource -
> > Subnets.
> >
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer
> >
> > OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer is another Heat resource that implements load
> > balancer. This resource is based on Load Balancer as a Service feature in
> > Neutron. OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer is much more configurable and
> > sophisticated but underlying implementation makes usage of this resource
> > quite complex.
> > LBaaS is a set of services installed and configured as a part of Neutron.
> > Fuel does not support LBaaS; Devstack has support for LBaaS, but LBaaS
> not
> > installed by default with Neutron.
> >
> > Own, Based on HAProxy
> >
> > We may implement load-balancer as a regular application in Murano using
> > HAProxy. This service may look like our Active Directory application with
> > almost same user-expirience. User may create load-balancer inside of the
> > environment and join any web-application (with any number of instances)
> > directly to load-balancer.
> > Load-balancer may be also implemented on Conductor workflows level, this
> > implementation strategy not going to change user-experience (in fact we
> > changing only underlying implementation details for our * Web Farm
> > applications, without introducing new ones).
>
> Hi,
>
> I would strongly encourage using OS::Neutron::LoadBalancer. The AWS
> resource is supposed to mirror Amazon capabilities, so any extension,
> while not impossible, is frowned upon. On the other hand the Neutron
> load balancer can be extended to your need, and being able to use an
> API gives you much more flexibility. It also in active development and
> will get more interesting features in the future.
>
> If you're having concerns about deploying Neutron LBaaS, you should
> bring it up with the team, and I'm sure they can improve the
> situation. My limited experience with it in devstack has been really
> good.
>
> Cheers,
>
> --
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Serg Melikyan, Senior Software Engineer at Mirantis, Inc.
http://mirantis.com | smelikyan@xxxxxxxxxxxx