On 22 Jan 2016 17:43, "James Bottomley" <
james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:58 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> > Hi Matt, James,
> >
> > any thoughts on the below notes?
>
> To be honest, not really. You've repeated stage two of the Oracle
> argument: wheel
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 21:49 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2016 17:43, "James Bottomley" <
> james.bottom...@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > The 3x difference in the benchmarks would seem to indicate a local
> > tuning or configuration problem, because it's not what most people
> >
Hi Matt, James,
any thoughts on the below notes?
Best Regards,
Prema
On 19 Jan 2016 20:47, "Premysl Kouril" wrote:
> Hi James,
>
>
> >
> > You still haven't answered Anita's question: when you say "sponsor" do
> > you mean provide resources to existing developers to
On Fri, 2016-01-22 at 14:58 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> Hi Matt, James,
>
> any thoughts on the below notes?
To be honest, not really. You've repeated stage two of the Oracle
argument: wheel out benchmarks and attack alleged "complexity". I
don't really have a great interest in repeating a
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> One feature I think we would like to see that could benefit from LVM is
> some kind of multidisk support with better fault tolerance
>
> For example:
> Say you have a node, and there are 20 vm's on it, and thats all
On 01/22/2016 09:33 AM, Matthew Booth wrote:
On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 8:47 PM, Fox, Kevin M > wrote:
One feature I think we would like to see that could benefit from LVM
is some kind of multidisk support with better fault tolerance
> I'm not a Nova developer. I am interesting in clarifying what you are
> asking.
>
> Are you asking for current Nova developers to work on this feature? Or
> s your company interested in having your developers interact with Nova
> developers?
>
> Thank you,
> Anita.
Both. We are first trying
Hello, Premysl,
I'm not working on these features, however I am working in this area of
code implementing the libvirt storage pools spec. If anybody does start
working on this, please reach out to coordinate as I have a bunch of
related patches. My work should also make your features
...@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] sponsor some LVM development
Hi Matt,
thanks for letting me know, we will definitely do reach you out if we
start some activity in this area.
To answer your question: main reason for LVM is simplicity and
performance. It seems from our benchmarks
Hi James,
>
> You still haven't answered Anita's question: when you say "sponsor" do
> you mean provide resources to existing developers to work on your
> feature or provide new developers.
>
I did, I am copy-pasting my response to Anita here again:
Both. We are first trying this "Are you
Hi Matt,
thanks for letting me know, we will definitely do reach you out if we
start some activity in this area.
To answer your question: main reason for LVM is simplicity and
performance. It seems from our benchmarks that LVM behavior when
processing many IOPs (10s of thousands) is more stable
On Tue, 2016-01-19 at 13:40 +0100, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> thanks for letting me know, we will definitely do reach you out if we
> start some activity in this area.
You still haven't answered Anita's question: when you say "sponsor" do
you mean provide resources to existing
Hello everybody,
we are a Europe based operator and we have a case for LVM based nova
instances in our new cloud infrastructure. We are currently
considering to contribute to OpenStack Nova to implement some features
which are currently not supported for LVM based instances (they are
only
On 01/18/2016 02:49 PM, Premysl Kouril wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> we are a Europe based operator and we have a case for LVM based nova
> instances in our new cloud infrastructure. We are currently
> considering to contribute to OpenStack Nova to implement some features
> which are currently
14 matches
Mail list logo