Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
On 10/2/18 6:17 PM, Mark Goddard wrote: On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 17:10, Jim Rollenhagen > wrote: On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM Eric Fried wrote: > What Eric is proposing (and Julia and I seem to be in favor of), is > nearly the same as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Eric Fried
On 10/02/2018 11:09 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM Eric Fried wrote: > > > What Eric is proposing (and Julia and I seem to be in favor of), is > > nearly the same as your proposal. The single difference is that these > > config templates or deploy

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Mark Goddard
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 17:10, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM Eric Fried wrote: > >> > What Eric is proposing (and Julia and I seem to be in favor of), is >> > nearly the same as your proposal. The single difference is that these >> > config templates or deploy templates

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Jim Rollenhagen
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM Eric Fried wrote: > > What Eric is proposing (and Julia and I seem to be in favor of), is > > nearly the same as your proposal. The single difference is that these > > config templates or deploy templates or whatever could *also* require > > certain traits, and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Eric Fried
> What Eric is proposing (and Julia and I seem to be in favor of), is > nearly the same as your proposal. The single difference is that these > config templates or deploy templates or whatever could *also* require > certain traits, and the scheduler would use that information to pick a > node.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Jim Rollenhagen
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 6:38 PM Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/01/2018 06:04 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:41 PM Eric Fried wrote: > > > > > That said, what if it was: > > > > openstack config-profile create --name BOOT_MODE_UEFI --json - > > { > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread John Garbutt
Back to the deprecation for a moment... My plan was to tell folks to use Traits to influence placement decisions, rather than capabilities. We probably can't remove the feature till we have deploy templates, but it seems wrong not to warn our users to avoid using capabilities, when 80% of the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-02 Thread Dmitry Tantsur
On 10/2/18 12:36 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: On 10/01/2018 06:04 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:41 PM Eric Fried wrote: > So say the user requests a node that supports UEFI because their     image > needs UEFI. Which workflow would you want here? > > 1) The

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Julia Kreger
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 3:37 PM Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/01/2018 06:04 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:41 PM Eric Fried wrote: > > > > > > > So say the user requests a node that supports UEFI because their > > image > > > needs UEFI. Which workflow would you

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Jay Pipes
On 10/01/2018 06:04 PM, Julia Kreger wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:41 PM Eric Fried wrote: > So say the user requests a node that supports UEFI because their image > needs UEFI. Which workflow would you want here? > > 1) The operator (or ironic?) has already

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Julia Kreger
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:41 PM Eric Fried wrote: > > > So say the user requests a node that supports UEFI because their image > > needs UEFI. Which workflow would you want here? > > > > 1) The operator (or ironic?) has already configured the node to boot in > > UEFI mode. Only pre-configured

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Eric Fried
> So say the user requests a node that supports UEFI because their image > needs UEFI. Which workflow would you want here? > > 1) The operator (or ironic?) has already configured the node to boot in > UEFI mode. Only pre-configured nodes advertise the "supports UEFI" trait. > > 2) Any node that

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Jim Rollenhagen
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 10:13 AM Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/01/2018 09:01 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM Jay Pipes > > wrote: > > > > On 10/01/2018 04:36 AM, John Garbutt wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 00:46, Jay Pipes >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Jay Pipes
On 10/01/2018 09:01 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM Jay Pipes > wrote: On 10/01/2018 04:36 AM, John Garbutt wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 00:46, Jay Pipes mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Jim Rollenhagen
On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 8:03 AM Jay Pipes wrote: > On 10/01/2018 04:36 AM, John Garbutt wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 00:46, Jay Pipes > > wrote: > > > > On 09/27/2018 06:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > > On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread Jay Pipes
On 10/01/2018 04:36 AM, John Garbutt wrote: On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 00:46, Jay Pipes > wrote: On 09/27/2018 06:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: >> A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template"

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-10-01 Thread John Garbutt
On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 00:46, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 09/27/2018 06:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template" from > >> [2]. This is nothing more than abusing the placement traits API in > >> order

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-09-28 Thread Sylvain Bauza
On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 12:50 AM melanie witt wrote: > On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:23:26 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: > > On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: > >> A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template" from > >> [2]. This is nothing more than abusing the placement traits

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-09-27 Thread Jay Pipes
On 09/27/2018 06:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template" from [2]. This is nothing more than abusing the placement traits API in order to allow passthrough of instance configuration data from the nova

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-09-27 Thread melanie witt
On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:23:26 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote: On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template" from [2]. This is nothing more than abusing the placement traits API in order to allow passthrough of instance configuration data from

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [ironic] [nova] [tripleo] Deprecation of Nova's integration with Ironic Capabilities and ComputeCapabilitiesFilter

2018-09-27 Thread Matt Riedemann
On 9/27/2018 3:02 PM, Jay Pipes wrote: A great example of this would be the proposed "deploy template" from [2]. This is nothing more than abusing the placement traits API in order to allow passthrough of instance configuration data from the nova flavor extra spec directly into the