Can you link to the etherpad you mentioned?
In the mean time, apologies for another analogy in
advance. :-)
If I give you an API to sort a list, I'm free to implement it however I
want as long as I return a sorted list. However, there is no way me to know
based on a call to this API that you
Hi all,
Jclouds put out a stack trace when I tried Get server details of API v2 by
jclouds.
I looked into a response body of the API, and found that a value of image was
an empty string as follows.
I think the value of image should be an empty dictionary like Get server
details of API v3.
What
Hi,
Is it possible to send a patch for review (i.e. A) on gerrit based on
multiple commit under the review (i.e. B and C)?
Based on the wiki page to add dependency these command should be used:
A-B, A-C (no dependency between B and C)
#fetch change under review and check out branch based on that
Hi,
Recently I have noticed the api-paste. ini file in heat has some very
long lines (over the popular 80c).
Wondering if there's recommended length limitation on it?
Sometime, users have to read the file and change the configuration
value, so I think it should be kept readable.
On 08/08/2014 12:12 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the
contributors' activities
This is not correct and I've seen it repeated too often to let it go
uncorrected: we (the OpenStack project as
Dear Eoghan,
Thanks for your comments. Although you are correct that rating, charging,
and billing policies are commercially sensitive to the operators, still if
an operator has an openstack installation, I do not see why the stack could
not offer a service that supports ways for the operator to
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
Please respond in the usual manner, +1 or concerns.
+1, I would be happy to see Ian joining the team.
Chmouel
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
just an update: the Neutron Ryu CI is getting stable now.
please let me know if you noticed any problems. thank you.
YAMAMOTO Takashi
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Hi Nader,
Le 08/08/2014 09:23, Nader Lahouti a écrit :
Hi,
Is it possible to send a patch for review (i.e. A) on gerrit based on
multiple commit under the review (i.e. B and C)?
Based on the wiki page to add dependency these command should be used:
A-B, A-C (no dependency between B and C)
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 1:43 AM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
yamam...@valinux.co.jp wrote:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 12:17 PM, YAMAMOTO Takashi
yamam...@valinux.co.jp wrote:
hi,
what's the right procedure to deprecate a plugin? we (ryu team) are
considering deprecating ryu plugin, in favor of ofagent.
Dear Andre,
I have not been an active user or IRC, but I have just now started using
it, I use the handle PH7_0 on irc://rajaniemi.freenode.net ... Tell me the
time and date and we can discuss more on cyclops.
Cheers,
Piyush.
___
Dr. Piyush Harsh, Ph.D.
i made 4 vm 1 controller, 1 network and 2 compute and i want 1 compute to
run as a storage so plz help how can i do such ?
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 12:01:04PM +0200, Piyush Harsh wrote:
Dear All,
Let me use my first post to this list to introduce Cyclops and initiate a
discussion towards possibility of this platform as a future incubated project
in OpenStack.
We at Zurich university of Applied Sciences have a
Eoghan Glynn wrote:
On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the
contributors' activities
This is not correct and I've seen it repeated too often to let it go
uncorrected: we (the OpenStack project as a whole) have a lot of
On 08/08/2014 11:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Personally I think we just need to get better at communicating the
downstream expectations, so that if we create waste, it's clearly
upstream fault rather than downstream. Currently it's the lack of
communication that makes developers produce more
On 07/08/14 18:54, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:46 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
In any case, the operative point is that CONF.attribute must
always be
evaluated inside run-time code, never at module load time.
...unless you call register_opts() safely, which is what I'm
On 07/08/14 19:02, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:41 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
... or arg is an object which defines __nonzero__(), or defines
__getattr__() and then explodes because of the unexpected lookup of a
__nonzero__ attribute. Or it's False (no quotes when printed
Hi,
On Tuesday, August 05, 2014 8:57 PM, Ihar Hrachyshka wrote:
Thanks. To facilitate quicker backport, you may also propose the patch
for review yourself. It may take time before stable maintainers or
other interested parties get to the bug and do cherry-pick.
I did cherry-pick for
On 08/08/2014 01:05 PM, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote:
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com
mailto:dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
Please respond in the usual manner, +1 or concerns.
+1, I would be happy to see Ian joining the team.
+1
Chmouel
Hi,
Is there any way to proceed ahead the following topic?
Best Regards,
Hisashi Osanai
On Friday, August 01, 2014 7:32 PM, Hisashi Osanai wrote:
I would like to follow this discussion so I picked up points.
- There are two way to collect info from swift, one is pollster and
the other
- Original Message -
From: Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 4:00:35 PM
Subject: [openstack-dev] Which program for Rally
1. Rally as an essential QA tool
Performance testing (and
On 08/08/14 11:04, Matthew Booth wrote:
On 07/08/14 18:54, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Thu, 2014-08-07 at 17:46 +0100, Matthew Booth wrote:
In any case, the operative point is that CONF.attribute must
always be
evaluated inside run-time code, never at module load time.
...unless you call
Per yesterday's IRC meeting, I have updated the debug data I had collected
in the github issue @
https://github.com/csabahenk/cirros/issues/9
It has data for both :
32bit nfs client accessing 64bit cirros nfs server
64bit nfs client accessing 64bit cirros nfs server
thanx,
deepak
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, Osanai, Hisashi wrote:
Is there any way to proceed ahead the following topic?
There are three active reviews that are somewhat related to this topic:
Use a FakeRequest object to test middleware:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/110302/
Publish samples on other threads:
On 08/06/2014 07:54 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
I bring this up on the mailing list because I think Liyi's patch offers
an interesting future direction to the way that we think about our retry
approach in Nova. Instead of having hard-coded or configurable interval
times, I think Liyi's approach of
Hi,
We have been struggling to get a decorator working for proposed new RBAC
functionality in ceilometer-api. We're hitting a problem where GET request
query parameters are mucked up by our decorator. Here's an example call:
curl -H X-Auth-Token:$TOKEN
On 08/07/2014 07:57 AM, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
On 2014-08-06 7:58 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
I'm astounded by this proposal - it doesn't remove the garbage
collection complexity at all - it transfers it from our code - Nova -
onto end users. So rather than one tested and consolidated
On 08/07/2014 08:06 PM, Michael Still wrote:
It seems to me that the tension here is that there are groups who
would really like to use features in newer libvirts that we don't CI
on in the gate. Is it naive to think that a possible solution here is
to do the following:
- revert the
Trinath:
In looking at your FWaaS review [1], I noticed the site you are using
for log storage is being blacklisted again, at least by Cisco WSA
appliances. Thus, I cannot see the logs for it. Did you change the
location of your log storage again? Is anyone else seeing this issue?
Thanks,
Kyle
Sorry, wrong BP review link below. Here is the correct one:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112127/3. Please disregard the wiki link.
From: Pendergrass, Eric
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 6:50 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Cc: Giannetti, Fabio
Subject: [Ceilometer] Question on
Hi Li,
How are you going to make this separation transparent? I mean,
generally, in a function code, you can't know in advance if the
transaction will be read-only or it will contain an
INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE statement. On the other hand, as a developer, you
could analyze the DB queries that can be
Wrong link again, this is embarrassing :(
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112137/3
From: Pendergrass, Eric
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 7:15 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: RE: [Ceilometer] Question on decorators in Ceilometer pecan framework
Sorry, wrong BP review link
This thread couldn't help but make me wonder what kind of problems people
hit developing on the linux kernel.
I discovered this pretty incredible article which seemed to have enough
relevant information in it to post it, but also give me the hopes that
Openstack and it's contributors are
On Aug 8, 2014, at 12:03 AM, Li Ma skywalker.n...@gmail.com wrote:
So, I'd like to propose a transparent read/write separation method
for oslo.db that every project may happily takes advantage of it
without any code modification.
A single transaction begins, which is to emit a series of
It looks like maybe WSME or Pecan is inspecting the method signature. Have you
tried to change the order of the decorators?
On Aug 8, 2014, at 9:16, Pendergrass, Eric eric.pendergr...@hp.com wrote:
Wrong link again, this is embarrassing L
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/112137/3
From:
On 08/08/2014 01:46 AM, Luke Gorrie wrote:
On 8 August 2014 02:06, Michael Still mi...@stillhq.com
mailto:mi...@stillhq.com wrote:
1: I think that ultimately should live in infra as part of check, but
I'd be ok with it starting as a third party if that delivers us
something
On Fri, 8 Aug 2014, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
To me the runway approach seems like yet another set of arbitrary hoops
that we will put in place so that we don't have to tell people that we
don't have bandwidth/willingness to review and help their contribution in.
I pretty much agree with this. As
On 8 August 2014 15:27, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
It sounds like what you're working on is a separate thing.
Roger. Just wanted to check if our work could have some broader utility,
but as you say we do have a specific use case in mind.
Cheers!
-Luke
I've been looking at the implications of applying oslo.config in Swift, and I
have a question about the best pattern for registering options.
Looking at how keystone uses oslo.config, the pattern seems to be to have all
options declared and registered 'up-front' in a single place
On Thu, Aug 7, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Hi everyone,
With the incredible growth of OpenStack, our development community is
facing complex challenges. How we handle those might
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Michael Still wrote:
[...] I think an implied side effect of
the runway system is that nova-drivers would -2 blueprint reviews
which were not occupying a slot.
(If we start doing more -2's I think we will need to
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ganapathy, Sandhya
sandhya.ganapa...@hp.com wrote:
This is to discuss Bug #1231298 –
https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1231298
...
Conclusion reached with this bug is that, we need to modify cinder client
in order to accept optional size parameter (as
On 08/08/2014 05:06 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Michael Still wrote:
[...] I think an implied side effect of
the runway system is that nova-drivers would -2 blueprint reviews
which were not occupying a slot.
(If we start doing more -2's I think we will need to explore how to
not block on
+1
From: chandankumar
chandankumar.093...@gmail.commailto:chandankumar.093...@gmail.com
Reply-To: OpenStack List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Friday, August 8, 2014 at 2:14 PM
To: OpenStack List
Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like security
group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself, without
bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port)
Traditionally, SG is applied in CN, and FWaas is applied in NN (bound to L3
agent),
On Wed, Aug 6, 2014 at 5:30 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Hi everyone,
At the TC meeting yesterday we discussed Rally program request and
incubation request. We quickly dismissed the incubation request, as
Rally appears to be able to live happily on top of OpenStack and
This came up while reviewing the fix for bug 1327406 [1]. Basically the
os-networks API behaves differently depending on your backing network
manager in nova-network.
We run Tempest in the gate with the FlatDHCPManager, which has the bug;
if you try to list networks as a non-admin user it
Thanks Matt for bringing this up/
There is a tiny start in flight here [0] - if you plan to work on providing
full testing coverage for the n-net api you may want to create a spec with
a link to an etherpad to help track / split the work.
andrea
[0] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/107552/21
On 8/8/2014 9:50 AM, Andrea Frittoli wrote:
Thanks Matt for bringing this up/
There is a tiny start in flight here [0] - if you plan to work on
providing full testing coverage for the n-net api you may want to create
a spec with a link to an etherpad to help track / split the work.
andrea
On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote:
Hi,
Following a very interesting and vocal thread on GBP for last couple of
days and the GBP meeting today, GBP sub-team proposes following name
changes to the resource.
policy-point for endpoint
policy-group for endpointgroup (epg)
Please reply if
Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongn...@huawei.com] wrote:
Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like security
group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself, without
bothering basic neutron object (network/subnet/port)
A modular layer 3 (ML3) analogous to ML2
Hi all,
I'm considering how I can apply image download/upload bandwidth limit for
glance for network QoS.
There was a review for the bandwidth limit, however it is abandoned.
* Download rate limiting
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21380/
Was there any discussion in the past summit about
The existing constructs will not change.
On Aug 8, 2014 9:49 AM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote:
Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongn...@huawei.com] wrote:
Does it make sense to move all advanced extension out of ML2, like
security
group, qos...? Then we can just talk about advanced service itself,
On 2014-08-08 8:54 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 08/07/2014 07:57 AM, Mathieu Gagné wrote:
IMO, moving the burden of such orchestration (and garbage collection)
to the end users would be a mistake. It's not a good UX at all.
I could say that removing auto-creation is like having to create your
Hi Paul,
Don't need to worry, you are perfectly right, GBP API is not replacing
anything :).
Also thanks for sharing your opinion on this matter.
Thanks,
Ivar.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 5:46 PM, CARVER, PAUL pc2...@att.com wrote:
Wuhongning [mailto:wuhongn...@huawei.com] wrote:
Does it make
Quick Question:
From what I understand, GBP is a high level declarative way of configuring
the network which ultimately gets mapped to basic Neutron API's via some
business logic. Why can't it be in a module of it own? In that way users
who want to use it can just install that and use it as an
Is there a straightforward way to determine where the time is going when
I run a command from novaclient?
For instance, if I run nova list, that's going to run novaclient,
which will send a message to nova-api, which wakes up and does some
processing and sends a message to nova-conductor,
Chris,
We working on cross service project profiler OSprofiler [1] and integrating
it in all projects (including gates)
Please join discussion here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103825/
If everting goes well we will get this feature in Juno.
So we will be able to trace request cross
On 08/08/2014 08:55 AM, Kevin Benton wrote:
The existing constructs will not change.
A followup question on the above...
If GPB API is merged into Neutron, the next logical steps (from what I
can tell) will be to add drivers that handle policy-based payloads/requests.
Some of these
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:06 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Michael Still wrote:
[...] I think an implied side effect of
the runway system is that nova-drivers would -2 blueprint reviews
which were not occupying a slot.
(If we start doing more -2's I think we will need
Hi Jay,
You can choose. The whole purpose of this is about flexibility, if you want
to use GBP API 'only' with a specific driver you just can.
Additionally, given the 'ML2 like' architecture, the reference mapping
driver can ideally run alongside by filling the core Neutron constructs
without
It might be because of the wording used, but it seems to me that you're
making it sound like the group policy effort could have been completely
orthogonal to neutron as we know it now.
What I understood is that the declarative abstraction offered by group
policy could do without any existing
Hi,
For updating keystone from 2014.1.1 to 2014.1.2, I had to:
- Upgrade oslo-config from 1.2.1 to 1.4.0.0~a3
- Upgrade oslo.messaging from 1.3.0~a9 to 1.4.0.0~a3
- Upgrade python-six from 1.6 to 1.7
- Upgrade python-pycadf from 0.4 to 0.5.1
- Add python-ldappool
- Add python-oslo.db
- Add
Hi Alistair,
Modules can register their own options and there is no need to call
reload_config_files. The config files are parsed and values stored in case the
option is later declared. The only time you need to reload files is if you add
new config files in the new module. See the example
On Aug 8, 2014, at 6:55 AM, Dean Troyer dtro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:36 AM, Ganapathy, Sandhya
sandhya.ganapa...@hp.com wrote:
This is to discuss Bug #1231298 –
https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1231298
...
Conclusion reached with this bug is that, we need
I'm hearing friend of a friend that people have looked at the code and
determined that the order of networks on a VM is not guaranteed. Can anyone
confirm whether this is true? If it is true, is there any reason why this is
not considered a bug? I've never seen it happen myself.
To elaborate,
On 08/08/2014 02:37 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
I agree with Eoghan here. The main goal of an agile/lean system is to
maximize a development team productivity. The main goal of Open source
project management is not to maximize productivity. It’s to maximize
contributions. I wrote about that a
There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
into the neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group
policy plugin will make sure they don't violate any policy constraints
before
Does your log server allow anonymous uploads that caused it to host malware
or something that led to it being blocked?
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Kyle Mestery mest...@mestery.com wrote:
Trinath:
In looking at your FWaaS review [1], I noticed the site you are using
for log storage is
On Aug 8, 2014, at 3:34 AM, Piyush Harsh h...@zhaw.ch wrote:
Dear Eoghan,
Thanks for your comments. Although you are correct that rating, charging, and
billing policies are commercially sensitive to the operators, still if an
operator has an openstack installation, I do not see why the
On Aug 8, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to use
the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated into the
neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group policy
The only issue with the separate service proxying API calls is that it
can't receive requests between the service and core plugins.
What kind of stability requirements were you concerned about? A response
change would be similar to having a custom policy.json file where things
that violate
Thomas Goirand wrote:
Hi,
For updating keystone from 2014.1.1 to 2014.1.2, I had to:
- Upgrade oslo-config from 1.2.1 to 1.4.0.0~a3
- Upgrade oslo.messaging from 1.3.0~a9 to 1.4.0.0~a3
- Upgrade python-six from 1.6 to 1.7
- Upgrade python-pycadf from 0.4 to 0.5.1
- Add python-ldappool
Hi Jay, To extend Ivar's response here, the core resources and core
plugin configuration does not change with the addition of these
extensions. The mechanism to implement the GBP extensions is via a
service plugin. So even in a deployment where a GBP service plugin is
deployed with a driver which
On 08/08/2014 12:29 PM, Sumit Naiksatam wrote:
Hi Jay, To extend Ivar's response here, the core resources and core
plugin configuration does not change with the addition of these
extensions. The mechanism to implement the GBP extensions is via a
service plugin. So even in a deployment where a
Actually I am able to access the logs in this CI over the internet and
through my service provider. I have copy-pasted the log from the
latest freescale run here (to validate if this is indeed the latest
run):
http://paste.openstack.org/show/92229/
But good point Kevin, when I was trying to post
On Aug 8, 2014, at 1:30 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya vishvana...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Alistair,
Modules can register their own options and there is no need to call
reload_config_files. The config files are parsed and values stored in case
the option is later declared. The only time you need to
Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
the team thinks, perhaps they can chime in.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/07/2014 01:17 PM, Ronak Shah wrote:
On 8 August 2014 10:56, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
into the neutron project. If someone uses the current APIs, the group
policy plugin
+1
Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com wrote on 08/08/2014 02:44:55 PM:
From: Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: 08/08/2014 02:45 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
policy target sounds good. +1
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
that 'policy-target' is a good option. I am not sure what the rest of
the team thinks, perhaps they can chime
On Aug 8, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Pendergrass, Eric eric.pendergr...@hp.com wrote:
Hi,
We have been struggling to get a decorator working for proposed new RBAC
functionality in ceilometer-api. We’re hitting a problem where GET request
query parameters are mucked up by our decorator. Here’s
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Armando M. arma...@gmail.com wrote:
On 8 August 2014 10:56, Kevin Benton blak...@gmail.com wrote:
There is an enforcement component to the group policy that allows you to
use the current APIs and it's the reason that group policy is integrated
into the neutron
On 08/08/2014 08:49 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
Hi all,
I'm considering how I can apply image download/upload bandwidth limit for
glance for network QoS.
There was a review for the bandwidth limit, however it is abandoned.
* Download rate limiting
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/21380/
[Note - I understand there are ongoing discussion that may lead to a
proposal for an out-of-tree incubation process for new Neutron features.
This is a complementary proposal that describes how our existing
development process can be used to stabilize new features in-tree over
the time frame
On 08/08/2014 04:17 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 08/08/2014 08:49 AM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote:
Hi all,
I'm considering how I can apply image download/upload bandwidth limit for
glance for network QoS.
There was a review for the bandwidth limit, however it is abandoned.
* Download rate limiting
GBP is about networking policy and hence limited to networking constructs.
It enhances the networking constructs. Since it follows more or less the
plugin model, it is not in one monolithic module but fans out to the policy
module and is done via extension.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:45 PM,
+1, That’s what suggested in the blueprint a year ago:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/transfer-rate-limiting
It looks like consensus during summit discussion that rate limiting should be
a separate facility running as a proxy in front of glance.”
Thanks,
Arnaud
On Aug 8, 2014,
That's ok for me as well!
+1
On Aug 8, 2014 10:04 PM, Prasad Vellanki
prasad.vella...@oneconvergence.com wrote:
It sounds good
+1
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Sumit Naiksatam sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks Jay for your constructive feedback on this. I personally think
that
On 8/8/14 16:28 , Arnaud Legendre
alegen...@vmware.commailto:alegen...@vmware.com wrote:
+1, That’s what suggested in the blueprint a year ago:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/transfer-rate-limiting
It looks like consensus during summit discussion that rate limiting should be
a
On Wed, Aug 06, 2014 at 01:40:28PM +0800, Tom Fifield wrote:
snip/
While DB migrations are running things like the nova metadata service
can/will misbehave - and user code within instances will be affected.
Thats arguably VM downtime.
OTOH you could define it more narrowly as 'VMs are not
On 08/08/2014 09:06 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
- instead implement a third party CI with the latest available
libvirt release [1]
As for the general idea of doing CI, absolutely. That was discussed
earlier in the thread, though nobody has picked up the ball yet. I can
work on it, though.
+1 for policy-target
-Original Message-
From: Sumit Naiksatam [mailto:sumitnaiksa...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 12:45 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron][policy] Group Based Policy - Renaming
Thanks Jay
On 08/06/2014 01:41 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 08/06/2014 01:40 AM, Tom Fifield wrote:
On 06/08/14 13:30, Robert Collins wrote:
On 6 August 2014 17:27, Tom Fifield t...@openstack.org wrote:
On 06/08/14 13:24, Robert Collins wrote:
What happened to your DB migrations then? :)
Sorry if I
Hi Robert,
I think this is a great proposal.
Easy to understand and (at a first glance) easy to implement.
Also, it seems the perfect compromise for those who wanted GBP (as a
representative for this kind of extension) in tree, and those who wanted it
to be more mature first.
Fwiw, You have my
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:21 PM, Robert Kukura kuk...@noironetworks.com wrote:
[Note - I understand there are ongoing discussion that may lead to a
proposal for an out-of-tree incubation process for new Neutron features.
This is a complementary proposal that describes how our existing
Adding the GBP extension to Neutron does not change the nature of the
software architecture of Neutron making it more or less monolithic.
I agree with this statement...partially: the way GBP was developed is in
accordance to the same principles and architectural choices made for the
service
This is the statement that makes me trip over,
I don't know what that means. Does it mean that you are so incredibly
shocked by the stupidity of that statement that you fall down? Or does it
mean something else?
Policy decision points can be decentralized from the system under scrutiny,
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 9:03 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org wrote:
We seem to be unable to address some key issues in the software we
produce, and part of it is due to strategic contributors (and core
reviewers) being overwhelmed just trying to stay afloat of what's
happening. For
That sounds essentially correct. Note that all 15 vms aren't used in a
normal devtest run, but we create them all anyway because of some
difficulties adding new environments in some situations (namely CI, I
believe).
On 08/05/2014 11:27 AM, LeslieWang wrote:
Hi Ben,
Thanks for your reply.
1 - 100 of 122 matches
Mail list logo
