Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
hi Duncan Sorry for the long delay. IMHO, the purpose of this change is let the cinder have ability to control admin's action. If admin only want to limit the users not to create resources any more, fine, use the option argument 'skip_validation=False to update the quota limit and just equal the usage of current quota is ok, do not allow lower than it. On the other hand, If admin clearly know what he is doing and want to set a new quota limit of tenant, ok, use the skip_validation=True to update the quota lower than current usage and tell user I've updated a new quota limit for you, now delete some resource to get under it. I agree that admin should be educated to know what they want to do and use a proper argument to reduce the confusion that was brought to end user. 2015-07-13 18:21 GMT+08:00 Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com: The problem is, if you reject the request to lower quota unless the usage is under the new quota, you've got an inherently racy process where the admin needs to communicate with the tenant to say 'Stop using some of your quota while I reduce it', which is no less complicated than 'I've reduced your quota, now delete some resources to get under it'. It honestly sounds like the right thing to do here is to educate the admins who are surprised by the current behaviour, rather than to introduce a new behaviour that is fundamentally no better. On 13 July 2015 at 12:14, hao wang sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Mike I'm not sure we really don't need any change about this feature. At least, some end users I faced to think there should be changed IMHO, there is a main problem that some users whom I faced to can't understand: What's the purpose that admin reduce quota lowner than existing usage? Limit user to can't create any resources any more? But why reduce quota just equal the current usage, it has same function. Make user to delete their resources lower than the new limit line? It's weak if user don't want to do that deletion and also bring some confusion to other users that I have mentioned. I understood there may be 100 reasons to show me why admin can reduce the quota lower than usage, and I don't want to object them too. But I hope this change can bring some new usage to update quota: 1. When admin use client(could be third party) to update the quota limit, they should check quota usage first as winston mentioned, if they don't or forget, anyway, they will change failed if quota is lower than usage, since we give the ability to cinder it will stop them to do that thing and make admin back to check quota usage. 2. If admin know what they are doing and just need to reduce the limit lower for some reason, fine, take the option argument '--force' or '--skip_validation' to update the quota. In personally, I felt this routine may be more improvement and little confusion with it. I knew Eric said that of course we can implement this purpose by using current APIs, it's a alternatives, but it depends on the application which is top on cinder I think, and is hard to have consistent. 2015-07-11 7:24 GMT+08:00 Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com: On 12:30 Jul 10, hao wang wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. Based on the feedback received in the bug and review, it seems like there is a clear consensus that people don't want this, even if it can be bypassed with a force option. -- Mike Perez __ 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 -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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 -- -- Duncan
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
The problem is, if you reject the request to lower quota unless the usage is under the new quota, you've got an inherently racy process where the admin needs to communicate with the tenant to say 'Stop using some of your quota while I reduce it', which is no less complicated than 'I've reduced your quota, now delete some resources to get under it'. It honestly sounds like the right thing to do here is to educate the admins who are surprised by the current behaviour, rather than to introduce a new behaviour that is fundamentally no better. On 13 July 2015 at 12:14, hao wang sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Mike I'm not sure we really don't need any change about this feature. At least, some end users I faced to think there should be changed IMHO, there is a main problem that some users whom I faced to can't understand: What's the purpose that admin reduce quota lowner than existing usage? Limit user to can't create any resources any more? But why reduce quota just equal the current usage, it has same function. Make user to delete their resources lower than the new limit line? It's weak if user don't want to do that deletion and also bring some confusion to other users that I have mentioned. I understood there may be 100 reasons to show me why admin can reduce the quota lower than usage, and I don't want to object them too. But I hope this change can bring some new usage to update quota: 1. When admin use client(could be third party) to update the quota limit, they should check quota usage first as winston mentioned, if they don't or forget, anyway, they will change failed if quota is lower than usage, since we give the ability to cinder it will stop them to do that thing and make admin back to check quota usage. 2. If admin know what they are doing and just need to reduce the limit lower for some reason, fine, take the option argument '--force' or '--skip_validation' to update the quota. In personally, I felt this routine may be more improvement and little confusion with it. I knew Eric said that of course we can implement this purpose by using current APIs, it's a alternatives, but it depends on the application which is top on cinder I think, and is hard to have consistent. 2015-07-11 7:24 GMT+08:00 Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com: On 12:30 Jul 10, hao wang wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. Based on the feedback received in the bug and review, it seems like there is a clear consensus that people don't want this, even if it can be bypassed with a force option. -- Mike Perez __ 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 -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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 -- -- Duncan Thomas __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
Hi, Mike I'm not sure we really don't need any change about this feature. At least, some end users I faced to think there should be changed IMHO, there is a main problem that some users whom I faced to can't understand: What's the purpose that admin reduce quota lowner than existing usage? Limit user to can't create any resources any more? But why reduce quota just equal the current usage, it has same function. Make user to delete their resources lower than the new limit line? It's weak if user don't want to do that deletion and also bring some confusion to other users that I have mentioned. I understood there may be 100 reasons to show me why admin can reduce the quota lower than usage, and I don't want to object them too. But I hope this change can bring some new usage to update quota: 1. When admin use client(could be third party) to update the quota limit, they should check quota usage first as winston mentioned, if they don't or forget, anyway, they will change failed if quota is lower than usage, since we give the ability to cinder it will stop them to do that thing and make admin back to check quota usage. 2. If admin know what they are doing and just need to reduce the limit lower for some reason, fine, take the option argument '--force' or '--skip_validation' to update the quota. In personally, I felt this routine may be more improvement and little confusion with it. I knew Eric said that of course we can implement this purpose by using current APIs, it's a alternatives, but it depends on the application which is top on cinder I think, and is hard to have consistent. 2015-07-11 7:24 GMT+08:00 Mike Perez thin...@gmail.com: On 12:30 Jul 10, hao wang wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. Based on the feedback received in the bug and review, it seems like there is a clear consensus that people don't want this, even if it can be bypassed with a force option. -- Mike Perez __ 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 -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
Ah, I apologise, I missed the but where it defaults to force=true. I withdraw the objection. I've no strung feelings about the change either way, in that case. On 10 Jul 2015 10:58, Gorka Eguileor gegui...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:28:06AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: That is a semantic change to the api that will break anybody who has tooling expecting the current behavior. Since there are perfectly sensible uses of the current behavior, that is not a good thing. Hi Duncan, I don't think that will be the case, if it's an optional argument that by default preserves current behavior (force = True), then it shouldn't break anything for all callers that don't use that new option. And for those that want the new behavior, they can always pass force set to false. Cheers, Gorka. On 10 Jul 2015 07:33, hao wang sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1304234 [2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197938/ Thanks~ -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:28:06AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: That is a semantic change to the api that will break anybody who has tooling expecting the current behavior. Since there are perfectly sensible uses of the current behavior, that is not a good thing. Hi Duncan, I don't think that will be the case, if it's an optional argument that by default preserves current behavior (force = True), then it shouldn't break anything for all callers that don't use that new option. And for those that want the new behavior, they can always pass force set to false. Cheers, Gorka. On 10 Jul 2015 07:33, hao wang sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1304234 [2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197938/ Thanks~ -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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 __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
That is a semantic change to the api that will break anybody who has tooling expecting the current behavior. Since there are perfectly sensible uses of the current behavior, that is not a good thing. On 10 Jul 2015 07:33, hao wang sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1304234 [2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197938/ Thanks~ -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
Hi, Duncan As Gorka said, we are trying not to impact default API behavior, just give a choice to client that it can restrict cloud admin to update quota lower than current usage. 2015-07-10 16:47 GMT+08:00 Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com: Ah, I apologise, I missed the but where it defaults to force=true. I withdraw the objection. I've no strung feelings about the change either way, in that case. On 10 Jul 2015 10:58, Gorka Eguileor gegui...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 10:28:06AM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: That is a semantic change to the api that will break anybody who has tooling expecting the current behavior. Since there are perfectly sensible uses of the current behavior, that is not a good thing. Hi Duncan, I don't think that will be the case, if it's an optional argument that by default preserves current behavior (force = True), then it shouldn't break anything for all callers that don't use that new option. And for those that want the new behavior, they can always pass force set to false. Cheers, Gorka. On 10 Jul 2015 07:33, hao wang sxmatch1...@gmail.com wrote: Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1304234 [2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197938/ Thanks~ -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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 __ 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 -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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-dev] [openstack][cinder]A discussion about quota update lower than current usage.
Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota. It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than current usage. But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw the current usage was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more. So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew it may be inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of updating quota. We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in request body. Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota lower then current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that will occur a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than current usage. I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see if this is value to merge this patch. [1]https://bugs.launchpad.net/neutron/+bug/1304234 [2]https://review.openstack.org/#/c/197938/ Thanks~ -- Best Wishes For You! __ 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
