tions)"
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 3:11 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [taskflow] Recommendations for the
granularity of tasks and their "stickiness" to workers
>
>Thanks to Joshua and Sandy for the
> From: Sandy Walsh
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [taskfl
List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [taskflow] Recommendations for the
granularity of tasks and their "stickiness" to workers
>On 6/17/2014
h
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2014 at 5:33 AM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [taskflow] Recommendations for the
granularity of tasks and their
On 6/17/2014 7:04 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> Folks,
>
> A question for the taskflow ninjas.
>
> Any thoughts on best practice WRT $subject?
>
> Specifically I have in mind this ceilometer review[1] which adopts
> the approach of using very fine-grained tasks (at the level of an
> individual alarm ev
On Tue, Jun 17 2014, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> Any thoughts on best practice WRT $subject?
First thing on my mind is that having smaller task can allow to have a
better repartition of the work load. :)
--
Julien Danjou
# Free Software hacker
# http://julien.danjou.info
signature.asc
Description:
Folks,
A question for the taskflow ninjas.
Any thoughts on best practice WRT $subject?
Specifically I have in mind this ceilometer review[1] which adopts
the approach of using very fine-grained tasks (at the level of an
individual alarm evaluation) combined with short-term assignments
to indivi
