Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
On May 25, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
- We'd need to create a per-Flavor FanOut queue. Some Compute nodes would
express their interest in handling the request and we'd, somehow, need to
decide which one
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com wrote:
We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an
OS API 2.0 world.
I'll bring the Festivus pole.
-jay
___
Mailing list:
...@rackspace.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any conclusions
for the near term.
Unless someone
From: Brian Lamar [brian.la...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:30 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/
PUT would
On May 24, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Brian Lamar wrote:
Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/
PUT would work in my mind if we allowed users to create their own
ReservationIDs, but since (I assume) we're generating them it would make more
sense to me to use POST on /zones/server.
Hmm, not sure I like changing the return type based on the input type. Return
types should be consistent.
From: Ed Leafe
If we are going to add an optional parameter to specify the number of
instances, would it be acceptable to specify that when
On May 24, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
Hmm, not sure I like changing the return type based on the input type. Return
types should be consistent.
Agreed, but I liked changing the meaning of PUT even less. :)
-- Ed Leafe
___
On May 24, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
I'm not really sure of the value in letting users generate their own
Reservation ID though. What would the typical motivation be?
That said, anyone else have preferences (PUT + user defined reservation ID's)
vs. (POST + zone generated
...@rackspace.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any
conclusions for the near term
POST isn't an issue for me. I honestly don't know why I wrote PUT ... I blame
the Canadian holiday.
From: Ed Leafe
On May 24, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
Hmm, not sure I like changing the return type based on the input type. Return
.
-Original Message-
From: Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've
2011/5/23 Sandy Walsh sandy.wa...@rackspace.com:
To Soren's point about losing the ability to rely on a fixed set of
topics in the message queue for doing scheduling this is not the case,
there are no new topics introduced.
That's not exactly what I meant.
If we stuck with the simple flavours
Hi Sandy,
My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating multiple
instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API. Same thing for
changing the way in which flavors work. Both features can be brought in as
extensions though.
I should note that when
Hi Jorge! Comments inline :)
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jorge Williams
jorge.willi...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Sandy,
My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating
multiple instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API.
Actually, I don't think we
Comments inline:
On May 23, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hi Jorge! Comments inline :)
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jorge Williams
jorge.willi...@rackspace.com wrote:
Hi Sandy,
My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating
multiple instances with a single
2011/5/23 Mark Washenberger mark.washenber...@rackspace.com:
If I understand the features correctly, their implementation in nova seems
straightforward. However, I am still a little curious about their necessity.
For load balancing, what is the difference between a single request for N
/me wishes you were on IRC ;)
Discussing this with Mark Wash on IRC...
Basically, I'm cool with using a UUID-like pregenerated instance ID
and returning that as a reservation ID in the 1.X API. I was really
just brainstorming about a future, request-centric 2.0 API that would
allow for more
On May 23, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
/me wishes you were on IRC ;)
Discussing this with Mark Wash on IRC...
I'll stop by :-)
Basically, I'm cool with using a UUID-like pregenerated instance ID
and returning that as a reservation ID in the 1.X API.
Cool.
I was really
just
On May 23, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
On May 23, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
If we make the instance ID a unique ID -- which we probably should. Why
not also treat it as a reservation id and generate/assign it up front?
Because that precludes the 1:M
On May 23, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
I don't see how that peculates anything. Treat the instance id as the
reservation id on single instance creations -- have a separate reservation id
when launching multiple instances. End of the day even if you have the
capability to
On May 23, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
Likewise, we need a way to query the results of a Reservation ID request
without busting GET /servers/detail ... perhaps GET /zones/servers could do
that?
GET /servers/reservation/ perhaps? Returns a list of instances
similar to
On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
From: Jorge Williams
So this is 2.0 API stuff -- right.
Well, we need it now ... so we have to find a short term solution.
Why not simply have a request on the server list with the reservation id as a
parameter.
This can easily be
Why does getting the instance id require the API to block? I can create 1 or
1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 instance ids
in a list of server entries in the same amount of time. I'm more concerned
about an external user hitting the API server 1000 times to
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
brian.sch...@nimbisservices.com wrote:
Why does getting the instance id require the API to block? I can create 1 or
1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 instance
ids in a list of server entries in the same amount of
I'm totally on board with this as a future revision of the OS api. However it
sounds like we need some sort of solution for 1.1.
1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two
different
things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N
So I think we've identified the real problem...
:)
sounds like we really need to do the UUID switchover to optimize here.
Vish
On May 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
brian.sch...@nimbisservices.com wrote:
Why does getting the instance
[openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of
Mark Washenberger [mark.washenber...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:54 PM
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
I'm totally on board
+1
On May 23, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
So I think we've identified the real problem...
:)
sounds like we really need to do the UUID switchover to optimize here.
Vish
On May 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
Also keep in mind that UUIDs alone may not be sufficient. As was
discussed previously in a marathon ID rename thread, we have to
handle the case of federated zones gone bad that could purposefully
produce UUIDs that collide. We may want any extra namespace such as
account:uuid or zone:uuid, but of
29 matches
Mail list logo
