- Multiple agreements about strict minimum bandwidth support feature
in nova - Spec has already been updated accordingly:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/
- For now we keep the hostname as the information connecting the
nova-compute and the neutron-agent on the same host but we are
aiming for having the hostname as an FQDN to avoid possible
ambiguity.
- We agreed not to make this feature dependent on moving the nova
port create to the conductor. The current scope is to support
pre-created neutron port only.
I could rat-hole in the spec, but figured it would be good to also
mention it here. When we were talking about this in Dublin, someone
also mentioned that depending on the network on which nova-compute
creates a port, the port could have a QoS policy applied to it for
bandwidth, and then nova-compute would need to allocate resources in
Placement for that port (with the instance as the consumer). So then
we'd be doing allocations both in the scheduler for pre-created ports
and in the compute for ports that nova creates. So the scope
statement here isn't entirely true, and leaves us with some technical
debt until we move port creation to conductor. Or am I missing
something?
I was sloppy and did not include all the details here. The spec goes
into a lot more detail about what and how needs to be supported in the
first iteration[1]. I still think that moving the port creation to the
conductor is not a hard dependency of the first iteration of this
feature. I also feel that we agreed on this on the PTG.
Cheers,
gibi
[1]
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/502306/15/specs/rocky/approved/bandwidth-resource-provider.rst@111
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
