+1 to Nova support for this getting in to Kilo. We have a similar use case. I’d really like to doll out quota on a department level, and let individual departments manage sub projects and quotas on their own. I agree that HMT has limited value without Nova support.
Thanks! Mike From: Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch<mailto:tim.b...@cern.ch>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> Date: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 at 11:01 AM To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <firstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:email@example.com>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical Multitenancy Joe, Thanks… there seems to be good agreement on the spec and the matching implementation is well advanced with BARC so the risk is not too high. Launching HMT with quota in Nova in the same release cycle would also provide a more complete end user experience. For CERN, this functionality is very interesting as it allows the central cloud providers to delegate the allocation of quotas to the LHC experiments. Thus, from a central perspective, we are able to allocate N thousand cores to an experiment and delegate their resource co-ordinator to prioritise the work within the experiment. Currently, we have many manual helpdesk tickets with significant latency to adjust the quotas. Tim From: Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gord...@gmail.com] Sent: 23 December 2014 17:35 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical Multitenancy On Dec 23, 2014 12:26 AM, "Tim Bell" <tim.b...@cern.ch<mailto:tim.b...@cern.ch>> wrote: > > > > It would be great if we can get approval for the Hierachical Quota handling > in Nova too (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129420/). Nova's spec deadline has passed, but I think this is a good candidate for an exception. We will announce the process for asking for a formal spec exception shortly after new years. > > > > Tim > > > > From: Morgan Fainberg > [mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com<mailto:morgan.fainb...@gmail.com>] > Sent: 23 December 2014 01:22 > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical Multitenancy > > > > Hi Raildo, > > > > Thanks for putting this post together. I really appreciate all the work you > guys have done (and continue to do) to get the Hierarchical Mulittenancy code > into Keystone. It’s great to have the base implementation merged into > Keystone for the K1 milestone. I look forward to seeing the rest of the > development land during the rest of this cycle and what the other OpenStack > projects build around the HMT functionality. > > > > Cheers, > > Morgan > > > > > > >> >> On Dec 22, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Raildo Mascena >> <rail...@gmail.com<mailto:rail...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hello folks, My team and I developed the Hierarchical Multitenancy concept >> for Keystone in Kilo-1 but What is Hierarchical Multitenancy? What have we >> implemented? What are the next steps for kilo? >> >> To answers these questions, I created a blog post >> http://raildo.me/hierarchical-multitenancy-in-openstack/ >> >> >> >> Any question, I'm available. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Raildo Mascena >> >> Software Engineer. >> >> Bachelor of Computer Science. >> >> Distributed Systems Laboratory >> Federal University of Campina Grande >> Campina Grande, PB - Brazil >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:OpenStackemail@example.com> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org<mailto:OpenStackemail@example.com> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev