After more thinking, I agree with Hongbin that instance_type might make customer confused with flavor, what about using server_type?
Actually, nova has concept of server group, the "servers" in this group can be vm. pm or container. Thanks! 2015-07-16 11:58 GMT+08:00 Kai Qiang Wu <wk...@cn.ibm.com>: > Hi Hong Bin, > > Thanks for your reply. > > > I think it is better to discuss the 'platform' Vs instance_type Vs others > case first. > Attach: initial patch (about the discussion): > *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/* > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/> > > My other patches all depend on above patch, if above patch can not reach a > meaningful agreement. > > My following patches would be blocked by that. > > > > Thanks > > > Best Wishes, > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan) > IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing > > E-mail: wk...@cn.ibm.com > Tel: 86-10-82451647 > Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park, > No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China > 100193 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Follow your heart. You are miracle! > > [image: Inactive hide details for Hongbin Lu ---07/16/2015 11:47:30 > AM---Kai, Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I was thinking how t]Hongbin > Lu ---07/16/2015 11:47:30 AM---Kai, Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I > was thinking how to name the field you proposed in baymo > > From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin...@huawei.com> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: 07/16/2015 11:47 AM > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform > VS others as a type? > ------------------------------ > > > > Kai, > > Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I was thinking how to name the field > you proposed in baymodel [1]. I prefer to drop it and use the existing > field ‘flavor’ to map the Heat template. > > [1] *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198984/6* > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198984/6> > > *From:* Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com <wk...@cn.ibm.com>] > * Sent:* July-15-15 10:36 PM > * To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > * Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use > platform VS others as a type? > > > Hi HongBin, > > I think flavors introduces more confusion than nova_instance_type or > instance_type. > > > As flavors not have binding with 'vm' or 'baremetal', > > Let me summary the initial question: > We have two kinds of templates for kubernetes now, > (as templates in heat not flexible like programming language, if else etc. > And separate templates are easy to maintain) > The two kinds of kubernets templates, One for boot VM, another boot > Baremetal. 'VM' or Baremetal here is just used for heat template selection. > > > 1> If used flavor, it is nova specific concept: take two as example, > m1.small, or m1.middle. > m1.small < 'VM' m1.middle < 'VM' > Both m1.small and m1.middle can be used in 'VM' environment. > So we should not use m1.small as a template identification. That's why I > think flavor not good to be used. > > > 2> @Adrian, we have --flavor-id field for baymodel now, it would picked up > by heat-templates, and boot instances with such flavor. > > > 3> Finally, I think instance_type is better. instance_type can be used as > heat templates identification parameter. > > instance_type = 'vm', it means such templates fit for normal 'VM' heat > stack deploy > > instance_type = 'baremetal', it means such templates fit for ironic > baremetal heat stack deploy. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > Best Wishes, > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan) > IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing > > E-mail: *wk...@cn.ibm.com* <wk...@cn.ibm.com> > Tel: 86-10-82451647 > Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park, > No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China > 100193 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Follow your heart. You are miracle! > > [image: Inactive hide details for Hongbin Lu ---07/16/2015 04:44:14 > AM---+1 for the idea of using Nova flavor directly. Why we introduc]Hongbin > Lu ---07/16/2015 04:44:14 AM---+1 for the idea of using Nova flavor > directly. Why we introduced the “platform” field to indicate “v > > From: Hongbin Lu <*hongbin...@huawei.com* <hongbin...@huawei.com>> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > *openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > Date: 07/16/2015 04:44 AM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform > VS others as a type? > ------------------------------ > > > > > +1 for the idea of using Nova flavor directly. > > Why we introduced the “platform” field to indicate “vm” or “baremetel” is > that magnum need to map a bay to a Heat template (which will be used to > provision the bay). Currently, Magnum has three layers of mapping: > > · platform: vm or baremetal > · os: atomic, coreos, … > · coe: kubernetes, swarm or mesos > > > I think we could just replace “platform” with “flavor”, if we can populate > a list of flovars for VM and another list of flavors for baremetal (We may > need an additional list of flavors for container in the future for the > nested container use case). Then, the new three layers would be: > > · flavor: baremetal, m1.small, m1.medium, … > · os: atomic, coreos, ... > · coe: kubernetes, swarm or mesos > > > This approach can avoid introducing a new field in baymodel to indicate > what Nova flavor already indicates. > > Best regards, > Hongbin > > * From:* Fox, Kevin M [*mailto:kevin....@pnnl.gov* <kevin....@pnnl.gov>] > * Sent:* July-15-15 12:37 PM > * To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > * Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use > platform VS others as a type? > > Maybe somehow I missed the point, but why not just use raw Nova flavors? > They already abstract away irconic vs kvm vs hyperv/etc. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ------------------------------ > *From:* Daneyon Hansen (danehans) [daneh...@cisco.com] > * Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:20 AM > * To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > * Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use > platform VS others as a type? > All, > > IMO virt_type does not properly describe bare metal deployments. What > about using the compute_driver parameter? > > compute_driver = None > > > (StrOpt) Driver to use for controlling virtualization. Options include: > libvirt.LibvirtDriver, xenapi.XenAPIDriver, fake.FakeDriver, > baremetal.BareMetalDriver, vmwareapi.VMwareVCDriver, hyperv.HyperVDriver > > > > *http://docs.openstack.org/kilo/config-reference/content/list-of-compute-config-options.html* > <http://docs.openstack.org/kilo/config-reference/content/list-of-compute-config-options.html> > *http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/deploy/install-guide.html* > <http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/deploy/install-guide.html> > > * From: *Adrian Otto <*adrian.o...@rackspace.com* > <adrian.o...@rackspace.com>> > * Reply-To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage > questions)" <*openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > * Date: *Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 7:44 PM > * To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > *openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > * Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use > platform VS others as a type? > > > One drawback to virt_type if not seen in the context of the acceptable > values, is that it should be set to values like libvirt, xen, ironic, etc. > That might actually be good. Instead of using the values 'vm' or > 'baremetal', we use the name of the nova virt driver, and interpret those > to be vm or baremetal types. So if I set the value to 'xen', I know the > nova instance type is a vm, and 'ironic' means a baremetal nova instance. > > Adrian > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Hongbin Lu <*hongbin...@huawei.com* <hongbin...@huawei.com>> > Date: 07/14/2015 7:20 PM (GMT-08:00) > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > *openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use > platform VS others as a type? > I am going to propose a third option: > > 3. virt_type > > I have concerns about option 1 and 2, because “instance_type” and > flavor was used interchangeably before [1]. If we use “instance_type” to > indicate “vm” or “baremetal”, it may cause confusions. > > [1] > *https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/flavor-instance-type-dedup* > <https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/flavor-instance-type-dedup> > > Best regards, > Hongbin > > * From:* Kai Qiang Wu [*mailto:wk...@cn.ibm.com* <wk...@cn.ibm.com>] > * Sent:* July-14-15 9:35 PM > * To:* *openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org* > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > * Subject:* [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform > VS others as a type? > > Hi Magnum Guys, > > > I want to raise this question through ML. > > > In this patch *https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/* > <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/> > > > For some old history reason, we use *platform *to indicate 'vm' or > 'baremetal'. > This seems not proper for that, @Adrian proposed nova_instance_type, > and someone prefer other names, let me summarize as below: > > > 1. nova_instance_type 2 votes > > 2. instance_type 2 votes > > 3. others (1 vote, but not proposed any name) > > > Let's try to reach the agreement ASAP. I think count the final votes > winner as the proper name is the best solution(considering community > diversity). > > > BTW, If you not proposed any better name, just vote to disagree all, I > think that vote is not valid and not helpful to solve the issue. > > > Please help to vote for that name. > > > Thanks > > > > > Best Wishes, > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan) > IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing > > E-mail: *wk...@cn.ibm.com* <wk...@cn.ibm.com> > Tel: 86-10-82451647 > Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park, > No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China > 100193 > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Follow your heart. You are miracle! > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > *openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe* > <openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe> > *http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev* > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: > openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu)
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev