From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A718610C3 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:52:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3617D201F6 for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:51:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A7E62201EB for ; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:51:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 70284456AB; Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:51:43 +0200 (CEST) To: Alexandre DERUMIER Cc: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20200924084054.611548-1-aderumier@odiso.com> <20200924084054.611548-10-aderumier@odiso.com> <0660b2c5-c733-7f3c-42ea-52425323fc1a@proxmox.com> <1270427221.1250623.1601022902478.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <2072648578.1250758.1601023192168.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> <382730821.1271374.1601098187379.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 08:51:42 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:81.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/81.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <382730821.1271374.1601098187379.JavaMail.zimbra@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.054 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.238 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v8 pve-network 09/25] api2: increase version on apply/reload only X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2020 06:52:14 -0000 On 26.09.20 07:29, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote: > I was thinking about another way, where user could also manualing edit = /etc/pve/sdn/*.cfg files > (or with some automations tools like puppet,ansible,... to manage their= network). >=20 > I was think about this: >=20 > sdn/*.cfg are the pending config, we don't increase any version count= er here >=20 > when when apply config, we increase version but also we generate a json= dump of configurations (vnets,zones,controllers,subnets,...). > (instead .version file, maybe create a .running-config file, with the j= son + version in the json) >=20 >=20 > This json dump of configuration with be the source to generate the loca= l configuration of each node. >=20 >=20 > Like this, we could also display pending change for each vnets,zones,..= =2E(or a simple display a "status:pending" in a new column in the config = grid for a specific element) > and user is still able to modify *.cfg manually. >=20 > what do you think about this ? sounds good to me. But, do you think complex setups could outgrow the 512k pmxcfs file limit= for big setups?