[openstack-dev] [release-schedule] about release Series

Hello, Is the content in https://releases.openstack.org/ is the latest? There are some question here, why Queens cycles is longer then Rocy cycles. The Rocy cycles is too shot of live, even less than six month? May be the "estimated 2019-02-23" is a slip of pen? Should it be

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] about unified limits

t; http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/keystone-specs/specs/keystone/rocky/strict-two-level-enforcement-model.html > [4] https://review.openstack.org/#/q/project:openstack/oslo.limit+status:open > [5] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/600265/ > [6] > http://logs.openstack.org/65/600265/3

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] about unified limits

commend some my colleges to work on this. I wish in S, all service can use unified limits to do quota job. > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 8:52 PM Jaze Lee wrote: >> >> On Stein only one service? >> Is there some methods to move this more fast? >> Lance Bragstad 于2018年9月

[openstack-dev] [blazar] about reservation

Hello, I view the source code and do not find the check logic for reservation a instance. It just create a lease, and nova just create a flavor. How do we ensure the resource is really reserved for us? We put the host into a new aggregate? and nobody except blazar will use the host? -- 谦谦君子

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] about unified limits

penstack/oslo.limit+branch:master+topic:limit_init > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 5:20 AM Jaze Lee wrote: >> >> Hello, >> Does nova and cinder use keystone's unified limits api to do quota job? >> If not, is

[openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] about unified limits

Hello, Does nova and cinder use keystone's unified limits api to do quota job? If not, is there a plan to do this? Thanks a lot. -- 谦谦君子 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] about backup instance booted from volume

2017-12-28 10:56 GMT+08:00 Jaze Lee <jaze...@gmail.com>: > Hello, >This is the spec about backup a instance booted from volume, anyone > who is interested on booted from volume can help to review this. Any > suggestion is welcome. The spec is here. https://review.openstac

[openstack-dev] [nova] about backup instance booted from volume

Hello, This is the spec about backup a instance booted from volume, anyone who is interested on booted from volume can help to review this. Any suggestion is welcome. -- 谦谦君子 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Boot from volume 's instance of rescue operation

2017-12-27 20:41 GMT+08:00 Jay Pipes : > On 12/27/2017 05:34 AM, 李杰 wrote: >> >> Hi,all >> >> As we all known,Now the boot from volume 's instance of rescue >> operation is invalid. >> To solve it,I have two plans. >> 1.I plan to use the rescue_image as

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] the cpu util

2017-12-20 23:48 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-20 10:06 AM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> Yes, i notice it. But when there will be vcpu.*.time? Which libvirt version? >> We use libvirt 3.2.0 and it does not have vcpu.*.time, so it will go >> to

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] the cpu util

2017-12-20 22:29 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-20 03:14 AM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> Hello, >> We use ceilometer newton, and also master calculates cpu same as newton. >> It is in >> https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob

[openstack-dev] [ceilometer] the cpu util

Hello, We use ceilometer newton, and also master calculates cpu same as newton. It is in https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/compute/virt/libvirt/inspector.py#L183 I test with a two vcpu vm, and find using this method as line 183 we can not get cpu util 100,

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

2017-12-18 21:17 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-17 11:08 PM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> Hello. >> >> 2017-12-16 9:30 GMT+08:00 Jaze Lee <jaze...@gmail.com>: >>> 2017-12-15 23:17 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>:

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

Hello. 2017-12-16 9:30 GMT+08:00 Jaze Lee <jaze...@gmail.com>: > 2017-12-15 23:17 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: >> >> >> On 2017-12-14 10:38 PM, Jaze Lee wrote: >>> It sounds like great. When the gnocchi can be ready to do transformer's &g

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

2017-12-15 23:17 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-14 10:38 PM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> It sounds like great. When the gnocchi can be ready to do transformer's work? >> If it takes long time, we have to move to compute temporarily. > > it alread

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

2017-12-14 22:34 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-14 04:14 AM, Jaze Lee wrote: >>> The plan is to actually make the TSDB (Gnocchi) do that job for us. >> What ？ >> Is there some detail on this plan ? If it did, then we do not need >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

2017-12-14 16:58 GMT+08:00 Julien Danjou <jul...@danjou.info>: > On Thu, Dec 14 2017, Jaze Lee wrote: > >> Oh, sorry. I found libvirt can not get cpu.util, cpu.delta, and >> network/disk rate info directly >> from inspector. So i mean, we can move this into comput

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles

Thanks a lot to open this topic. I want to open this topic like this some times, but i thought, may be myself is too sensitive? To me, i found as Openstack mature, the developer is less valuable. The devs can install it then teach user to use it, then ok the deal is done. The Openstack in many

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

2017-12-13 21:16 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-13 01:52 AM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> Hello, >> >> What about move transformer to compute pollster? If we do this, we >> do not need >> transformer any more > > sor

[openstack-dev] [ceilometer] about add transformer into libvirt

Hello, What about move transformer to compute pollster? If we do this, we do not need transformer any more -- 谦谦君子 __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer][gnocchi] some code not very understood

2017-12-07 16:36 GMT+08:00 Julien Danjou <jul...@danjou.info>: > On Thu, Dec 07 2017, Jaze Lee wrote: > >>I think at line 416, we should remove some measures that already post at >> 390. >>Or may be i miss something? >> >> >> htt

[openstack-dev] [ceilometer][gnocchi] some code not very understood

Hello, I think at line 416, we should remove some measures that already post at 390. Or may be i miss something? https://github.com/openstack/ceilometer/blob/master/ceilometer/publisher/gnocchi.py#L416 -- 谦谦君子

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Boot from volume 's instance of rebuild operation

2017-12-07 10:27 GMT+08:00 Mathieu Gagné <mga...@calavera.ca>: > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 9:13 PM, Jaze Lee <jaze...@gmail.com> wrote: >> 2017-12-07 7:12 GMT+08:00 Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com>: >>> On 12/6/2017 2:11 AM, 李杰 wrote: >>>> >>&

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Boot from volume 's instance of rebuild operation

2017-12-07 7:12 GMT+08:00 Matt Riedemann : > On 12/6/2017 2:11 AM, 李杰 wrote: >> >> Hi,all >> >> Now the boot from volume 's instance of rebuild operation has a >> problem.For example,after the rebuild operation,the instance 's root disk is >> not replace. >> I found

[openstack-dev] [neutron] put router in vm rather than namespace

Hello, Can we put router into virtual machine rather than in namespace? Then the HA, and devops will be more elegant. You can live mirage, and use haproxy. The namespace can not be live mirage. It is bind to the host and lose flexible. Or is there some talks or specs about this? -- 谦谦君子

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer][cinder]about cinder volume usage

; this is one case where > duplication is very, very cheap. Yes it is too cheap to refuse. But i think it should be not exists there. > > On 4 December 2017 at 10:30, Jaze Lee <jaze...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> Right now,we can get volume from central p

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer][cinder]about cinder volume usage

2017-12-04 20:57 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-04 05:30 AM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> Right now,we can get volume from central pollester. Then i think >> may be we can drop cinder volume usage. > > which metrics are you referrin

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] remove gnocchi http interface?

2017-12-04 20:53 GMT+08:00 gordon chung <g...@live.ca>: > > > On 2017-12-03 10:41 PM, Jaze Lee wrote: >> So what about to remove gnocchi http, and add a simple tcp socket, which >> will send to gnocchi tcp server(which will also be created.). > > i'm curio

Re: [openstack-dev] [ceilometer] remove gnocchi http interface?

2017-12-04 18:41 GMT+08:00 Julien Danjou <jul...@danjou.info>: > On Mon, Dec 04 2017, Jaze Lee wrote: > >> Right now, the dispatch will cost much time in http request. And >> keystone auth token cost much time. Although we can configure it to >> noauth, then anyo

[openstack-dev] [ceilometer][cinder]about cinder volume usage

Hello, Right now,we can get volume from central pollester. Then i think may be we can drop cinder volume usage. Cinder volume usage, do not like nova usage which is in nova compute. It is a cmd. And should put it in cron. This will cause more work in devops. If ceilometer pollester can

[openstack-dev] [ceilometer] remove gnocchi http interface?

Hello, Right now, the dispatch will cost much time in http request. And keystone auth token cost much time. Although we can configure it to noauth, then anyone can update gnocchi database which is not we want. So what about to remove gnocchi http, and add a simple tcp socket, which will