On 2014-08-06 7:58 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
I'm astounded by this proposal - it doesn't remove the garbage
collection complexity at all - it transfers it from our code - Nova -
onto end users. So rather than one tested and consolidated
implementation, we'll have one implementation in saltstack, one
implementation in heat, one implementation in Juju, one implementation
in foreman etc.
In what possible way is that an improvement ?
I agree with Robert. It is not an improvement.
For various reasons, in some parts of our systems, we have to manually
create ports beforehand and it has always been a mess.
Instance creation often fails for all sort of reasons and it's really
annoying to have to garbage collect orphan ports once in a while. The
typically user does not use the API and does not care about the
In other parts of our systems, we do rely on port auto-creation. It
might has its flaws but when we use it, it works like a charm and we
like it. We really appreciate the orchestration and automation made by Nova.
IMO, moving the burden of such orchestration (and garbage collection) to
the end users would be a mistake. It's not a good UX at all.
I could say that removing auto-creation is like having to create your
volume (from an image) before booting on it. Before BDMv2, that's what
we had to do and it wasn't cool at all. We had to implement a logic
waiting for the volume to be 'available' before booting on it otherwise
Nova would complain about the volume not being available. Now that we
have BDMv2, it's a much better UX.
I want to be able to run this command and not worry about pre-steps:
nova boot --num-instances=50 [...] app.example.org
OpenStack-dev mailing list