Excerpts from Sylvain Bauza's message of 2013-12-14 06:23:48 -0800:
> 2013/12/9 Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com>
> > Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2013-12-09 09:34:06 -0800:
> > > I'm thinking more generic:
> > >
> > > The cloud provider will provide one or more "suballocating" images. The
> > one Triple O uses to take a bare metal node and make vm's available would
> > be the obvious one to make available initially. I think that one should not
> > have a security concern since it is already being used in that way safely.
> >
> > I like where you're going with this, in that the cloud should eventually
> > become "self aware" enough to be able to privision the baremetal resources
> > it has and spin nova up on them. I do think that is quite far out. Right
> > now, we have two nova's.. an undercloud nova which owns all the baremetal,
> > and an overcloud nova which owns all the vms. This is definitely nested,
> > but there is a hard line between the two.
> >
> > For many people, that hard line is a feature. For others, it is a bug.  :)
> >
> >
> Could we imagine that an end-user would like to provision one undercloud
> host plus a certain number of overcloud nodes so that the Scheduler for
> undercloud Nova would deny other hosts but the ones provisioned ?

Yes I could imagine that. I also imagine that does not require any special
knowledge of the undercloud that the overcloud's nova API doesn't already
have access to. The "host" is a thing in the overcloud after all.

> As a contrary,  Scheduler for other undercloud Nova's need to deny the
> provisioning of the nodes hosted by another tenant than the requester...
> I played with TripleO a few months ago (August/September, before the merge
> with Tuskar) so that's a bit unclear for me, but I'm just saying we could
> potentially achieve this by using Climate which does deploy its own
> Scheduler Filter for making sure the proper hosts are booted.

Currently undercloud nova has one tenant: the overcloud operator. It is
single tenant, which means it has less complexity, but that also means you
can't hand hardware out directly to multiple tenants. That is why I say
that some consider it a feature, and some a bug. IMO that is how it should
remain, and we should just enhance systems like Climate to be more aware
of the topology of the hosts which are already an entity in the overcloud.

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to