On 2014/31/01 22:03, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
So after reading the replies on this thread, it seems like I (and others
advocating
a custom scheduler) may have overthought things a bit. The reason this route
was
suggested was because of conflicting goals for Icehouse:
a) homogeneous nodes (to simplify requirements)
b) support diverse hardware sets (to allow as many users as possible to try
Tuskar)
Option b) requires either a custom scheduler or forcing nodes to have the same
attributes,
and the answer to that question is where much of the debate lies.
I think these two goals are pretty accurate.
However, taking a step back, maybe the real answer is:
a) homogeneous nodes
b) document. . .
- **unsupported** means of "demoing" Tuskar (set node attributes to match
flavors, hack
the scheduler, etc)
Why are people calling it 'hack'? It's an additional filter to
nova-scheduler...?
- our goals of supporting heterogeneous nodes for the J-release.
I wouldn't talk about J-release. I would talk about next iteration or
next step. Nobody said that we are not able to make it in I-release.
Does this seem reasonable to everyone?
Mainn
Well +1 for a) and it's documentation.
However me and Robert, we look to have different opinions on what
'homogeneous' means in our context. I think we should clarify that.
-- Jarda
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
