On 10 September 2013 08:04, Mike Spreitzer <mspre...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >> My vision for TripleO/undercloud and scale in the long term is: >> - A fully redundant self-healing undercloud >> - (implies self hosting) > ... > > Robert, what do you mean by "self hosting"? If a cloud can self-host, why > do we need two clouds (under and over)? Running the baremetal scheduler and a regular scheduler is still not pretty; the baremetal scheduler exact-matches on memory etc, vs a subdividing scheduler which looks for 'fits in'. You can work around this by running cells. However, there is a very nice separation of concerns in having your production cloud and your deployment cloud completely disconnected. For instance, a configuration error is much less able to permit a tenant of your production cloud deploying onto baremetal when they shouldn't. Relatedly, being able to spin up multiple overclouds gives you a great dev/CI story: test your overcloud by having a parallel test overcloud sitting on the same undercloud substrate. That said, I think it's feasible to support a single cloud for folk that want it - and initially when we started this I wanted it, I just no longer think that it's actually the ideal configuration :). -Rob -- Robert Collins <rbtcoll...@hp.com> Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev