On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 06:31:35PM +0200, Liran Alon wrote:
>
>
> > On 21 Mar 2019, at 17:50, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 08:45:17AM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> >> On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 15:04:37 +0200
> >> Liran Alon <liran.alon@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> OK. Now what happens if master is moved to another namespace? Do we need
> >>>> to move the slaves too?
> >>>
> >>> No. Why would we move the slaves? The whole point is to make most customer ignore the net-failover slaves and remain them “hidden” in their dedicated netns.
> >>> We won’t prevent customer from explicitly moving the net-failover slaves out of this netns, but we will not move them out of there automatically.
> >>
> >>
> >> The 2-device netvsc already handles case where master changes namespace.
> >
> > Is it by moving slave with it?
>
> See c0a41b887ce6 ("hv_netvsc: move VF to same namespace as netvsc device”).
> It seems that when NetVSC master netdev changes netns, the VF is moved to the same netns by the NetVSC driver.
> Kinda the opposite than what we are suggesting here to make sure that the net-failover master netdev is on a separate
> netns than it’s slaves...
>
> -Liran
>
> >
> > --
> > MST
Not exactly opposite I'd say.
If failover is in host ns, slaves in /primary and /standby, then moving
failover to /container should move slaves to /container/primary and
/container/standby.
--
MST
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
