After hacking on the PoC for awhile [1] I have finally pushed up a spec
[2]. Behold it in all its dark glory!
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/603930/
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/616037/
On 8/22/2018 8:23 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Hi everyone,
I have started an etherpad for
On 8/27/2018 1:53 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 8/27/2018 12:11 PM, Miguel Lavalle wrote:
Isn't multiple port binding what we need in the case of ports? In my
mind, the big motivator for multiple port binding is the ability to
change a port's backend
Hmm, yes maybe. Nova's usage of multiple
On Fri, 24 Aug 2018 10:44:16 -0500, Jay S Bryant wrote:
I haven't checked the PTG agenda yet, but is there a meeting on this?
Because we may want to have one to try to understand the requirements
and figure out if there's a way to do it with current Cinder
functionality of if we'd need something
On 8/27/2018 12:11 PM, Miguel Lavalle wrote:
Isn't multiple port binding what we need in the case of ports? In my
mind, the big motivator for multiple port binding is the ability to
change a port's backend
Hmm, yes maybe. Nova's usage of multiple port bindings today is
restricted to live
Hi Matt,
Isn't multiple port binding what we need in the case of ports? In my mind,
the big motivator for multiple port binding is the ability to change a
port's backend
Best regards
Miguel
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:32 AM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
> On 24/08, Jay S Bryant wrote:
> >
> >
> > On
On 24/08, Jay S Bryant wrote:
>
>
> On 8/23/2018 12:07 PM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
> > On 23/08, Dan Smith wrote:
> > > > I think Nova should never have to rely on Cinder's hosts/backends
> > > > information to do migrations or any other operation.
> > > >
> > > > In this case even if Nova had that
+operators
On 8/24/2018 4:08 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 8/23/2018 10:22 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
I haven't gone through the workflow, but I thought shelve/unshelve
could detach
the volume on shelving and reattach it on unshelve. In that workflow,
assuming
the networking is in place to
On 8/23/2018 10:22 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
I haven't gone through the workflow, but I thought shelve/unshelve could detach
the volume on shelving and reattach it on unshelve. In that workflow, assuming
the networking is in place to provide the connectivity, the nova compute host
would be
On 8/23/2018 12:07 PM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
I haven't checked the PTG agenda yet, but is there a meeting on this?
Because we may want to have one to try to understand the requirements
and figure out if there's a way to do it with current Cinder
functionality of if we'd need something new.
I
On 8/22/2018 9:14 PM, Sam Morrison wrote:
I think in our case we’d only migrate between cells if we know the network and
storage is accessible and would never do it if not.
Thinking moving from old to new hardware at a cell level.
If it's done via the resize API at the top, initiated by a
On 8/23/2018 12:07 PM, Gorka Eguileor wrote:
On 23/08, Dan Smith wrote:
I think Nova should never have to rely on Cinder's hosts/backends
information to do migrations or any other operation.
In this case even if Nova had that info, it wouldn't be the solution.
Cinder would reject migrations
On 23/08, Dan Smith wrote:
> > I think Nova should never have to rely on Cinder's hosts/backends
> > information to do migrations or any other operation.
> >
> > In this case even if Nova had that info, it wouldn't be the solution.
> > Cinder would reject migrations if there's an incompatibility
On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 08:23:41PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have started an etherpad for cells topics at the Stein PTG [1]. The main
> issue in there right now is dealing with cross-cell cold migration in nova.
>
> At a high level, I am going off these requirements:
>
>
> I think Nova should never have to rely on Cinder's hosts/backends
> information to do migrations or any other operation.
>
> In this case even if Nova had that info, it wouldn't be the solution.
> Cinder would reject migrations if there's an incompatibility on the
> Volume Type (AZ, Referenced
On 22/08, Matt Riedemann wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have started an etherpad for cells topics at the Stein PTG [1]. The main
> issue in there right now is dealing with cross-cell cold migration in nova.
>
> At a high level, I am going off these requirements:
>
> * Cells can shard across flavors
I think in our case we’d only migrate between cells if we know the network and
storage is accessible and would never do it if not.
Thinking moving from old to new hardware at a cell level.
If storage and network isn’t available ideally it would fail at the api request.
There is also ceph
Hi everyone,
I have started an etherpad for cells topics at the Stein PTG [1]. The
main issue in there right now is dealing with cross-cell cold migration
in nova.
At a high level, I am going off these requirements:
* Cells can shard across flavors (and hardware type) so operators would
17 matches
Mail list logo
