On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Solly Ross <sr...@redhat.com> wrote:
> With my admittedly limited knowledge of the whole Ironic process, the 
> question seems to me to be: "If we don't implement a proxy, which people are 
> going to have a serious problem?"
> Do we have an data on which users/operators are making use of the baremetal 
> API in any extensive fashion?  If nobody's using it, or the people using it 
> aren't using in an
> extensive fashion, I think we don't need to make a proxy for it.  
> Strengthening this
> argument is the fact that we would only be proxying the first two calls, so 
> it wouldn't
> be a drop-in replacement anyway.

You make a fair point, and this is something we've struggled for
during the Ironic driver implementation. We _know_ that baremetal
works (I know of at least one 1,000 node deployment), but we _don't_
know how widely its deployed and we don't have a good way to find out.

So, I think we're left assuming that people do use it, and acting accordingly.

Then again, is it ok to assume admins can tweak their code to use the
ironic API? I suspect it is, because the number of admins is small...


Rackspace Australia

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to