Hi Sergio, On 28 May 2014 23:28, Cazzolato, Sergio J <sergio.j.cazzol...@intel.com> wrote: > Hi Kieran, > > What do you think about the approach proposed in > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/94519/ ? > > What we are trying to do is to simplify the way to manage default quotas > through an API and keeping backward compatibility. So doing this is not > needed to restart any service once a default quota is changed, something that > could be painful when there are many services running in parallel.
If the current spec is implemented as-is, when we upgrade to Juno our default quotas will be wrong. Like Joe mentioned, the table wasn't dropped in Icehouse (and the underlying default quotas still work), so my only concern at this point is that users don't have to do *anything* in order to ensure that default quotas are maintained during an Icehouse -> Juno upgrade. Whether this should happen as part of your spec, or another spec designed to address just this issue, I don't know. Cheers, Kieran > > > From: Kieran Spear [mailto:kisp...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:05 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova default quotas > > Hi Joe, > > On 28/05/2014, at 11:21 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Kieran Spear <kisp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 28/05/2014, at 6:11 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvana...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Phil, >> >> You are correct and this seems to be an error. I don't think in the earlier >> ML thread[1] that anyone remembered that the quota classes were being used >> for default quotas. IMO we need to revert this removal as we (accidentally) >> removed a Havana feature with no notification to the community. I've >> reactivated a bug[2] and marked it critical. > > +1. > > We rely on this to set the default quotas in our cloud. > > Hi Kieran, > > Can you elaborate on this point. Do you actually use the full quota-class > functionality that allows for quota classes, if so what provides the quota > classes? If you only use this for setting the default quotas, why do you > prefer the API and not setting the config file? > > We just need the defaults. My comment was more to indicate that yes, this is > being used by people. I'm sure we could switch to using the config file, and > generally I prefer to keep configuration in code, but finding out about this > half way through a release cycle isn't ideal. > > I notice that only the API has been removed in Icehouse, so I'm assuming the > impact is limited to *changing* the defaults, which we don't do often. I was > initially worried that after upgrading to Icehouse we'd be left with either > no quotas or whatever the config file defaults are, but it looks like this > isn't the case. > > Unfortunately the API removal in Nova was followed by similar changes in > novaclient and Horizon, so fixing Icehouse at this point is probably going to > be difficult. > > Cheers, > Kieran > > > > > Kieran > >> >> Vish >> >> [1] >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2014-February/027574.html >> [2] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1299517 >> >> On May 27, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Day, Phil <philip....@hp.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Vish, >>> >>> I think quota classes have been removed from Nova now. >>> >>> Phil >>> >>> >>> Sent from Samsung Mobile >>> >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Vishvananda Ishaya >>> Date:27/05/2014 19:24 (GMT+00:00) >>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] nova default quotas >>> >>> Are you aware that there is already a way to do this through the cli using >>> quota-class-update? >>> >>> http://docs.openstack.org/user-guide-admin/content/cli_set_quotas.html >>> (near the bottom) >>> >>> Are you suggesting that we also add the ability to use just regular >>> quota-update? I'm not sure i see the need for both. >>> >>> Vish >>> >>> On May 20, 2014, at 9:52 AM, Cazzolato, Sergio J >>> <sergio.j.cazzol...@intel.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I would to hear your thoughts about an idea to add a way to manage the >>>> default quota values through the API. >>>> >>>> The idea is to use the current quota api, but sending ''default' instead >>>> of the tenant_id. This change would apply to quota-show and quota-update >>>> methods. >>>> >>>> This approach will help to simplify the implementation of another >>>> blueprint named per-flavor-quotas >>>> >>>> Feedback? Suggestions? >>>> >>>> >>>> Sergio Juan Cazzolato >>>> Intel Software Argentina >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
