Hi. This is a reminder mail for the servicevm IRC meeting
June 10, 2014 Tuesdays 5:00(AM)UTC-
#openstack-meeting on freenode
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/ServiceVM
agenda: (feel free to add your items)
* project incubation
* NFV meeting follow up
* open discussion
--
Isaku Yamahata
Hi,
I think that option 2 should be preferred at this stage.
I also think that certificate should be immutable, if you want a new one,
create a new one and update the listener to use it.
This removes any chance of mistakes, need for versioning etc.
-Sam.
-Original Message-
From: Jorge
hi mathieu,
I totally agree. By using l2population with tunnel networks (vxlan,
gre), you will not be able to plug an external device which could
possibly terminate your tunnel. The ML2 plugin has to be aware a new
port in the vxlan segment. I think this is the scope of this bp :
Dear all,
Seems like both Fuel and TripleO are designed to solve problem of complex
Openstack installation and Deployment. TripleO is using Heat for orchestration.
If we can define network creation, OS provision and deployment in Heat
template, seems like they can achieve similar goal. So can
So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do.
If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using
the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack
Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the
hook
- Original Message -
On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Mark McLoughlin mar...@redhat.com wrote:
On Fri, 2014-06-06 at 13:29 -0400, Anita Kuno wrote:
The issue I have with the word certify is that it requires someone or a
group of someones to attest to something. The
Well, fuel devs are also hacking on TripleO :) I don't know the exact
timelines but I'm certainly hopeful that we'll see long term
convergence - as TripleO gets more capable, more and more of Fuel
could draw on TripleO facilities, for instance.
-Rob
On 9 June 2014 19:41, LeslieWang
Le vendredi 6 juin 2014, 15:57:09 Mark McLoughlin a écrit :
Mehdi has been making great contributions and reviews on oslo.messaging
for months now, so I've added him to oslo.messaging-core.
Thank you for all your hard work Mehdi!
Congrats Mehdi :-)
Victor
On 6 June 2014 10:17, henry hly henry4...@gmail.com wrote:
ML2 mechanism drivers are becoming another kind of plugins. Although
they can be loaded together, but can not work with each other.
[...]
Could we remove all device related adaption(rest/ssh/netconf/of... proxy)
from these mechanism
Hi Joe,
Can you give some examples of what that data would be used for ?
It sounds on the face of it that what you’re looking for is pretty similar to
what Extensible Resource Tracker sets out to do
(https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86050
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/71557)
Phil
From:
Hello all,
I am trying to debug devstack Neutron with Pycharm, i have found here (
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronDevelopment#How_to_debug_Neutron_.28and_other_OpenStack_projects_probably_.29
)
That i need to change the neutron server code to this= eventlet.monkey_patch()
To:
Hello all,
I am trying to debug devstack Neutron with Pycharm, i have found here (
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/NeutronDevelopment#How_to_debug_Neutron_.28and_other_OpenStack_projects_probably_.29
)
That i need to change the neutron server code to this= eventlet.monkey_patch()
To:
Hi everyone,
We have a need to be able to dedicate a specific host aggregate to a list
of tenants/projects. If the aggregate is marked as such, the aggregate may
only be used by that specified list of tenants and those tenants may only
be scheduled to that aggregate.
The
Hi OpenStack Development Community,
I know that the OpenStack interest is to become a cloud computing operating
system. And this simple sentence means: Say goodbye to Statefull
Applications.
But, as you know we are in the transition phase from stateful apps to
stateless apps(Remember Pets and
On 06/06/2014 12:06 PM, Mac Innes, Kiall wrote:
Several of the TC requested we have an openstack-infra managed DevStack
gate enabled before they would cast their vote - I'm happy to say, we've
got it :)
With the merge of [1], Designate now has voting devstack /
requirements / docs jobs. An
On 9 June 2014 09:44, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote:
Since certification seems to be quite an overloaded term
already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as
quality assured better capture the Cinder project's use of
the word?
It does exactly what it says on the tin ...
Hi All,
A Spec. RST document for LBaaS TLS support was added to Gerrit for review
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640
You are welcome to start commenting it for any open discussions.
I tried to address each aspect being discussed, please add comments about
missing things.
Thanks,
On 6 June 2014 18:29, Anita Kuno ante...@anteaya.info wrote:
So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do.
If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using
the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack
Technical Committee
Hi All,
A Spec RST document was added to Gerrit for review
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98640
You are welcome to start commenting it for any open discussions.
I tried to address each aspect being discussed,
please add comments about missing things.
Thanks,
Evgeny
-Original
On 9 June 2014 09:44, Eoghan Glynn egl...@redhat.com wrote:
Since certification seems to be quite an overloaded term
already, I wonder would a more back-to-basics phrase such as
quality assured better capture the Cinder project's use of
the word?
It does exactly what it says on
Hi folks,
I know that sometime ago saltstack was evaluated to be used as orchestrator
in fuel, so I've prepared some initial specification, that addresses basic
points of integration, and general requirements for orchestrator.
In my opinion saltstack perfectly fits our needs, and we can benefit
Hi Jesse,
I would say that is a documentation bug for the
“AggregateMultiTenancyIsolation” filter.
When this was implemented the objective was to schedule only instances from
specific tenants for those aggregates but not make them exclusive.
That’s why the work on
Mike,
Thanks a lot for your response!
Some comments:
There’s some in-Python filtering following it which does not seem
necessary; the alloc.vxlan_vni not in vxlan_vnis” phrase
could just as well be a SQL “NOT IN” expression.
There we have to do specific set intersection between configured
Based on some back of envelope math the gate is basically processing 2
changes an hour, failing one of them. So if you want to know how long
the gate is, take the length / 2 in hours.
Right now we're doing a lot of revert roulette, trying to revert things
that we think landed about the time
Hi folks,
There is an important topic which I would like to discuss: it seems like
there is a place for improvement in UI validation and filtering in Murano.
The reason of writing this is a change-set [1] (being an implementation of
blueprint [2]) which allows package developers to specify the
On 06/06/2014 08:07 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote:
Forcing an instance to a specific host is very useful for the
operator - it fulfills a valid use case for monitoring and testing
purposes.
Pray tell, what is that valid use case?
I am not defending a particular way of doing this, just
On 06/05/2014 09:54 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
-Original Message- From: Jay Pipes
[mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com] Sent: 04 June 2014 19:23 To:
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
[nova] Proposal: Move CPU and memory allocation ratio out of
scheduler
On 06/04/2014 11:56
If you don't mind I'd like to step back for a moment and talk about
the end users of this codebase and the types code it will be used in.
We're looking to make application developers successful in PHP. The
top 10% of PHP application developers aren't an issue. If they have an
SDK or not they will
Hi all,
I'd like to get some opinions on following idea:
Because currently we have (thanks to Ann) WIP of healing script capable
of changing database scheme by comparing tables in the database to
models in current codebase, I started to think whether it could be used
generally to db upgrades
In my experience building apps that run in OpenStack, you don't give
up state. You shift how you handle state.
For example, instead of always routing a user to the same instance and
that instance holding the session data there is a common session store
for the app (possibly synced between
Forgot to add tags, sorry
On 06/09/2014 04:18 PM, Jakub Libosvar wrote:
Hi all,
I'd like to get some opinions on following idea:
Because currently we have (thanks to Ann) WIP of healing script capable
of changing database scheme by comparing tables in the database to
models in current
I had to call too. I got same conditions as Carl.
cheers,
Rossella
On 06/05/2014 04:45 PM, Kyle Mestery wrote:
It would be ideal if folks could use the room block I reserved when
booking, if their company policy allows it. I've gotten word from the
hotel they may release the block if more
Jamie, thanks for sharing those links. They are quite useful and led
me to a couple questions.
1. To quote the first link, To do this, we need a way to describe the
requirement such that everyone – the business folks, the analyst, the
developer and the tester – have a common understanding of the
On Mon, Jun 09, 2014, Jakub Libosvar libos...@redhat.com wrote:
I'd like to get some opinions on following idea:
Because currently we have (thanks to Ann) WIP of healing script capable
of changing database scheme by comparing tables in the database to
models in current codebase, I started to
On 06/07/2014 12:30 AM, Joe Cropper wrote:
Hi Folks,
I was wondering if there was any such mechanism in the compute node
structure to hold arbitrary key-value pairs, similar to flavors'
extra_specs concept?
It appears there are entries for things like pci_stats, stats and
recently added
On 06/09/2014 03:38 AM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do.
If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using
the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack
Technical Committee and other
Hi there.
I am dealing with large amount of legacy application(MediaWiki, Joomla,
...) running on openstack. I am looking for the best way to improve high
availability of my instances. All applications are not designed for
fail(Non-Cloud-Ready Apps). So, what is the best way of improving HA on my
FYI: We now have the initial Glance spec up for review.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98554/
We generalized a few concepts and will look at how to bring a few of those
concepts back in potentially via a future spec.
Thanks,
Travis
From: Tripp, Travis S
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 4:27 PM
Hi,
You still can run legacy application on OpenStack with HA and DR using the
same good old school tools like pacemaker, heartbeat, DRBD etc. There are
all necessary features available in latest OpenStack. The most important
feature for HA - secondary IP address was implemented in Havana. Now
Hey German,
I agree with you. I don't really want to go with option #1 because making
decisions on behalf of the user (especially when security is involved) can
be quite tricky and dangerous. Your concerns are valid for option #2 but I
still think it is the better option to go with. I believe
Please don't send review requests to the list. The preferred methods of
requesting reviews are explained here:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-September/015264.html
Thanks.
-Ben
On 06/07/2014 12:31 AM, Kanzhe Jiang wrote:
The serviceBase and insertion spec has been up
Really thanks Georgy for your complete answer. My major concern on
openstack was HA on my legacy apps(I wanted to use cloudstack instead of
openstack becasue of its more attention to legacy apps and more HA
features). But now, I will check your listed HA solutions on openstack and
come back as
On 06/09/2014 07:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/06/2014 08:07 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote:
Forcing an instance to a specific host is very useful for the
operator - it fulfills a valid use case for monitoring and testing
purposes.
Pray tell, what is that valid use case?
I find it useful
There may also be specific software entitlement issues that make it useful
to deterministically know which host your VM will be placed on. This can
be quite common in large organizations that have certain software that can
be tied to certain hardware or hardware with certain # of CPU capacity,
There may be some problems with MySQL when testing parallel writes in
different non-committing transactions, even in READ COMMITTED mode,
due to InnoDB locking, if the queries use non-unique secondary indexes
for UPDATE or SELECT..FOR UPDATE queries. This is done by the
with_lockmode('update')
Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options:
1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification to
the project level.
2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what
we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of
Hi Hossein,
In additions you may check the following:
Heat OS::Heat::HARestarter resource
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/heat/template_guide/openstack.html
This blog entry about clustering:
http://vmtrooper.com/openstack-your-windows-cluster-with-neutron-allowed-address-pairs/
Mistral
Hi team,
Thank you all for participating in Mistral weekly meeting today,
meeting minutes are available by the following links:
Minutes:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/mistral_weekly_meeting/2014/mistral_weekly_meeting.2014-06-09-15.59.html
Minutes (text):
On Jun 9, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Devananda van der Veen devananda@gmail.com
wrote:
There may be some problems with MySQL when testing parallel writes in
different non-committing transactions, even in READ COMMITTED mode,
due to InnoDB locking, if the queries use non-unique secondary indexes
I understand this concern and was advocating that a configuration option be
available to disable or enable auto updating of SSL certificates. But since
every one is in favor of storing meta data on the barbican container directly I
guess this is a moot point now.
On Jun 6, 2014, at 5:52
All,
I've been working on setting up our Cinder 3rd party CI setup.
I ran into an issue where Zuul requires direct access to review.openstack.org
port 29418, which is currently blocked in my environment. It should be
unblocked around the end of June.
Since this will likely affect other
On Jun 9, 2014 4:12 AM, Jesse Pretorius jesse.pretor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi everyone,
We have a need to be able to dedicate a specific host aggregate to a list
of tenants/projects. If the aggregate is marked as such, the aggregate may
only be used by that specified list of tenants and those
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Chris Friesen
chris.frie...@windriver.com wrote:
On 06/07/2014 12:30 AM, Joe Cropper wrote:
Hi Folks,
I was wondering if there was any such mechanism in the compute node
structure to hold arbitrary key-value pairs, similar to flavors'
extra_specs concept?
+1 for the idea of making certificate immutable.
However, if Barbican allows updating certs/containers then versioning is a
must.
Thanks,
Vivek
On 6/8/14, 11:48 PM, Samuel Bercovici samu...@radware.com wrote:
Hi,
I think that option 2 should be preferred at this stage.
I also think that
Hi all,
Thanks again for the great comments on the initial cut of wireframes. I’ve
updated them a fair amount based on feedback in this e-mail thread along with
the feedback written up here:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/alarm-management-page-design-discussion
Here is a link to the new
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
Can you give some examples of what that data would be used for ?
Sure! For example, in the PowerKVM world, hosts can be dynamically
configured to run in split-core processor mode. This setting can be
dynamically
On 06/02/2014 06:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
Towards the end of the summit there was a discussion about us using a
shared review dashboard to see if a common view by the team would help
accelerate people looking at certain things. I spent some time this
weekend working on a tool to make building
On 06/09/2014 12:50 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
There may be some problems with MySQL when testing parallel writes in
different non-committing transactions, even in READ COMMITTED mode,
due to InnoDB locking, if the queries use non-unique secondary indexes
for UPDATE or SELECT..FOR UPDATE
- Original Message -
From: Steve Gordon sgor...@redhat.com
To: ITAI MENDELSOHN (ITAI) itai.mendels...@alcatel-lucent.com, OpenStack
Development Mailing List (not for usage
Just adding openstack-dev to the CC for now :).
- Original Message -
From: ITAI MENDELSOHN (ITAI)
On 06/09/2014 01:38 PM, Joe Cropper wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
Can you give some examples of what that data would be used for ?
Sure! For example, in the PowerKVM world, hosts can be dynamically
configured to run in split-core
On 06/09/2014 12:32 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 06/09/2014 07:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/06/2014 08:07 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote:
Forcing an instance to a specific host is very useful for the
operator - it fulfills a valid use case for monitoring and testing
purposes.
Pray tell,
On 06/09/2014 12:47 PM, Joe Cropper wrote:
There may also be specific software entitlement issues that make it
useful to deterministically know which host your VM will be placed on.
This can be quite common in large organizations that have certain
software that can be tied to certain hardware or
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:07:07PM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote:
Hi Everyone,
So we'd like to announce to everyone that we're going to be doing a combined
Infra and QA program mid-cycle meet-up. It will be the week of July 14th in
Darmstadt, Germany at Deutsche Telekom who has graciously
Hi everyone,
The OpenStack Infrastructure (Infra) team is hosting our weekly
meeting on Tuesday June 10th, at 19:00 UTC in #openstack-meeting
Meeting agenda available here:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/InfraTeamMeeting (anyone is
welcome to to add agenda items)
Everyone interested
On 06/09/2014 01:38 PM, David Kranz wrote:
On 06/02/2014 06:57 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
Towards the end of the summit there was a discussion about us using a
shared review dashboard to see if a common view by the team would help
accelerate people looking at certain things. I spent some time this
Hi folks,
I submitted a new blueprint proposing the addition of a new operator to the
existing ones.
BP:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/add-all-in-list-operator-to-extra-spec-ops
Spec review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/98179/
What do you think?
Thanks,
Facundo.
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/2014 12:50 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
There may be some problems with MySQL when testing parallel writes in
different non-committing transactions, even in READ COMMITTED mode,
due to InnoDB locking, if the
On 06/09/2014 02:57 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/2014 12:50 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
There may be some problems with MySQL when testing parallel writes in
different non-committing transactions, even in
So maybe the problem isn?t having the flavors so much, but in how the
user currently has to specific an exact match from that list.
If the user could say ?I want a flavor with these attributes? and then the
system would find a ?best match? based on criteria set by the cloud admin
then would
So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do.
If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using
the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack
Technical Committee and other OpenStack programs find themselves on the
On 06/09/2014 03:17 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
So there are certain words that mean certain things, most don't, some do.
If words that mean certain things are used then some folks start using
the word and have expectations around the word and the OpenStack
Technical Committee and other
Folks, this may be a bit of a bombshell, but I think we have been dancing
around the issue for a while now and we need to address it head on. Let me
start with some background.
Back when we started designing the Marconi API, we knew that we wanted to
support several messaging patterns. We
As far as I understand the Current Barbican implementation is immutable.
Can anyone from Barbican comment on this?
-Original Message-
From: Jain, Vivek [mailto:vivekj...@ebay.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014 8:34 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Hi folks,
Hacking 0.9.1 has just been released (hacking 0.9.1 had a minor bug).
Unlike other dependencies 'OpenStack Proposal Bot' does not automatically
push out a patch to the new version.
The recommended way to upgrade to hacking 0.9.1 is to add any new failing
tests to the exclude list in
Hi All,
At the Solum-Murano-Heat cross-project session [1] during the
Openstack Juno Summit it was decided that it would be beneficial for
the Solum, Murano and Heat projects to implement common UX patterns in
separate library. During an early discussion several more projects
were added (Mistral
As per current implementation, containers are immutable.
Do we have any use case to make it mutable? Can we live with new container
instead of updating an existing container?
Arvind
-Original Message-
From: Samuel Bercovici [mailto:samu...@radware.com]
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2014
On Jun 9, 2014, at 1:08 PM, Mike Bayer mba...@redhat.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Devananda van der Veen devananda@gmail.com
wrote:
There may be some problems with MySQL when testing parallel writes in
different non-committing transactions, even in READ COMMITTED mode,
On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 07:25 -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
On 06/06/2014 12:06 PM, Mac Innes, Kiall wrote:
Several of the TC requested we have an openstack-infra managed DevStack
gate enabled before they would cast their vote - I'm happy to say, we've
got it :)
With the merge of [1],
Hi I work for Kontron a hardware company that is a member of the foundation
since this year.
One of our blade product hold 2 complete servers (I7 Haswell chip, 16Gb ram,
120 Gb SSD each) that are managed by a single IPMI BMC (Board Management
Controller) using the IPMI ManagedFRU concept. This
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 06/09/2014 01:38 PM, Joe Cropper wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 5:17 AM, Day, Phil philip@hp.com wrote:
Hi Joe,
Can you give some examples of what that data would be used for ?
Sure! For example, in the
Salvatore,
The 80% distinction came from a discussion I had at summit, representing that
the majority of features described by the current security groups could be
implemented today with OVS without connection tracking. It’s not based on any
mathematical calculation… more of a
Paul,
Beyond explicit configuration for the cloud operator, documentation and API
validation for the end user, is there anything specific you would like to see
as a “warning label”? Does iptables do TCP sequence number validation? Where we
can, we should strive to match iptables behavior.
Carl,
You are correct in both distinctions. Like I mentioned to Paul, beyond explicit
configuration for the cloud operator, documentation and API validation for the
end user, is there anything specific you would like to see as a “warning label”?
Amir
On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:01 AM, Carl Baldwin
Option A can be made usable provided you do the following:
1. Add an endpoint for determining whether or not the current service
supports optional feature X.
2. For each optional feature of the API, clearly document that the
feature is optional, and name the feature it is part of.
Hi all!
Dmitry called it to my attention last week that we lacked any official
guidelines on bug tags, and I've just gotten around to following up on
it. I've created an official list in launchpad and added that to the
OpenStack bug tag tags list wiki page here:
Hi Luke:
After talking with various infra folks, we've noticed the Tail-f CI
system is not voting anymore. According to some informal research, the
last run for this CI setup was in April [1]. Can you verify this
system is still running? We will need this to be working by the middle
of Juno-2,
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:31 PM, Kurt Griffiths
kurt.griffi...@rackspace.com wrote:
Folks, this may be a bit of a bombshell, but I think we have been dancing
around the issue for a while now and we need to address it head on. Let me
start with some background.
Back when we started designing
I could not agree more with the need to re-think Marconi’s current approach to
scenario breadth and implementation extensibility/flexibility. The broader the
HTTP API surface area, the more limited are the implementation choices, and the
harder are performance trade-offs. Current HTTP APIs of
Hi all,
While the oslo-specs repository has been available for a while and a
number of specs proposed, we hadn't agreed on a process for actually
approving them (i.e. the normal 2 +2's or something else). This was
discussed at the Oslo meeting last Friday and the method decided upon by
the
Based on the discussion I'd like to propose these options:
1. Cinder-certified driver - This is an attempt to move the certification
to the project level.
2. CI-tested driver - This is probably the most accurate, at least for what
we're trying to achieve for Juno: Continuous Integration of
The barbican team was considering making the container mutable but I don't
think it matters now
since every one has chimed in and wants the container to be immutable. The
current discussion now is that
the TLS container will be immutable but the meta data will not be.
I'm not sure what is
Hi all,
I’m strongly in favor of having immutable TLS-typed containers, and very
much opposed to storing every revision of changes done to a container. I
think that storing versioned containers would add too much complexity to
Barbican, where immutable containers would work well.
I’m still not
Last week, we tried to fix a bug in the way that Nova's baremetal and
ironic drivers are using the HostManager / HostState classes --
they're incorrectly reporting capabilities in an older fashion, which
is not in use any more, and thus not exposing the node's stats to
the scheduler. The fix
The impression I have from this thread is that Containers should remain
immutable, but it would be helpful to allow services like LBaaS to register as
interested in a given Container. This could be the full URI to the load
balancer instance for example. This information would allow clients to
The use case was that a cert inside the container could be updated while the
private key stays the same. IE a new cert would be a resigning of the same old
key. By immutable we mean to say that the same UUID would be used on the lbaas
side. This is a heavy handed way of expecting the user to
Mike,
For the typical case, your proposal sounds reasonable to me. That
should protect against cross-session locking while still getting the
benefits of testing DML without committing to disk.
The issue I was originally raising is, of course, the special case
-- testing of migrations -- which, I
I understand how this could be helpful, but I still don’t understand why
this is Barbican’s problem to solve.
From Jorge’s original email:
Using this method requires services, such as LBaaS, to register in
the form of metadata to a barbican container.
If our assumptions are that the GUI can
Excerpts from Douglas Mendizabal's message of 2014-06-09 16:08:02 -0700:
Hi all,
I’m strongly in favor of having immutable TLS-typed containers, and very
much opposed to storing every revision of changes done to a container. I
think that storing versioned containers would add too much
On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Joe Gordon joe.gord...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Hacking 0.9.1 has just been released (hacking 0.9.1 had a minor bug).
Unlike other dependencies 'OpenStack Proposal Bot' does not automatically
push out a patch to the new version.
Edit: hacking 0.9.0 had a
Over the last 7 days ceilometer unit test jobs have a 18% failure rate in
the gate queue [0], while we see expect to see some failures in integration
testing, unit tests should not be failing in the gate with such a high
frequency (and for so long).
It looks like these failures are due to two
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
