Joseph-
Tnx, we couldn't ask for more.
--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Ph: 303/443-3786
-Original Message-
From: Joseph Suh [mailto:j...@isi.edu]
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 10:49 AM
To: Dugger, Donald D
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net; Jiang, Yunhon
Don,
Hmm, so the use of the instance_type_extra_specs is not for specifications
purely any more... I am open to your proposed idea that if there is no
operator, it will ignore the item (that is not original behavior of
compute_filter, though). So, let me wait and see if there are any
objection
Joseph-
Basically, Vish & Sandy convinced me that the `instance_type_extra_specs' was
the right place to put the trust info, rather than creating a new table. I
like the idea of expanding the idea of extra_specs to be used to store extra
information. I can easily imagine cases where someone w
Don,
That's an interesting idea, but I am having a difficulty in understanding why
you want to store extra information (not spec) in instance_type_extra_specs. If
you need to keep some extra information, using or creating another flag or
field in database might be a better place for that? The i
Yunhong,
I understand your concern. It has a different purpose than the compute_filter,
so it has its own merit and can co-exist. The question is how much the demand
is...
Thanks,
Joseph
(w) 703-248-6160
(f) 703-812-3712
http://www.east.isi.edu/~jsuh
Information Sciences Institute
Unive
Joeseph-
My concern is that this means that the compute filter consumes `every` entry in
the `extra_specs' table. I can imagine scenarios where other filters would
want to put data in `extra_specs' that is not intended for the compute filter.
In fact, we do that today with the trusted filter
> -Original Message-
> From: Joseph Suh [mailto:j...@isi.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:38 PM
> To: Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: Dugger, Donald D; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: One question on the compute_filter
>
> Yunhong,
>
> Thanks for your interest in our patch. The o
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim Fehlig [mailto:jfeh...@suse.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:37 AM
> To: Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: j...@isi.edu; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] One question on the compute_filter
>
> Jiang, Yunhong w
Yunhong,
Thanks for your interest in our patch. The original purpose of the
instance_type_extra_specs is providing ability to specify any specs that cannot
be enumerated at the nova coding time such as hardware-specific requirements
(like gpu) or any features in the future system (like python v
Jiang, Yunhong wrote:
>
> Hi, Joseph
>
> I’m working on the patch for blueprints
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/update-flavor-key-value,
> to add/delete the extra_specs for flavor through nova-manage. I’m
> still setting up my environment to push the patch.
>
>
>
>
Hi, Joseph
I'm working on the patch for blueprints
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/update-flavor-key-value, to
add/delete the extra_specs for flavor through nova-manage. I'm still setting up
my environment to push the patch.
However, when I was testing my patch, I
11 matches
Mail list logo
