> Update on that agreement : I made the necessary modification in the
> proposal [1] for not verifying the filters. We now send a request to the
> Placement API by introspecting the flavor and we get a list of potential
> destinations.
Thanks!
> When I began doing that modification, I know there
Le 25/01/2017 05:10, Matt Riedemann a écrit :
> On 1/24/2017 2:57 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>> On 1/24/2017 2:38 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>>
>>> It's litterally 2 days before FeatureFreeze and we ask operators to
>>> change their cloud right now ? Looks difficult to me and like I said in
>>> mul
On 1/24/2017 2:57 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 1/24/2017 2:38 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
It's litterally 2 days before FeatureFreeze and we ask operators to
change their cloud right now ? Looks difficult to me and like I said in
multiple places by email, we have a ton of assertions saying it's
ac
On 1/24/2017 2:57 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 1/24/2017 2:38 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
It's litterally 2 days before FeatureFreeze and we ask operators to
change their cloud right now ? Looks difficult to me and like I said in
multiple places by email, we have a ton of assertions saying it's
ac
On 1/24/2017 2:38 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
It's litterally 2 days before FeatureFreeze and we ask operators to
change their cloud right now ? Looks difficult to me and like I said in
multiple places by email, we have a ton of assertions saying it's
acceptable to have not all the filters.
-Sylva
Le 24/01/2017 22:22, Dan Smith a écrit :
>> No. Have administrators set the allocation ratios for the resources they
>> do not care about exceeding capacity to a very high number.
>>
>> If someone previously removed a filter, that doesn't mean that the
>> resources were not consumed on a host. It
> No. Have administrators set the allocation ratios for the resources they
> do not care about exceeding capacity to a very high number.
>
> If someone previously removed a filter, that doesn't mean that the
> resources were not consumed on a host. It merely means the admin was
> willing to accept
Le 23/01/2017 15:18, Sylvain Bauza a écrit :
>
>
> Le 23/01/2017 15:11, Jay Pipes a écrit :
>> On 01/22/2017 04:40 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>> Hey folks,
>>>
>>> tl;dr: should we GET /resource_providers for only the related resources
>>> that correspond to enabled filters ?
>>
>> No. Have admi
Le 23/01/2017 15:11, Jay Pipes a écrit :
> On 01/22/2017 04:40 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> tl;dr: should we GET /resource_providers for only the related resources
>> that correspond to enabled filters ?
>
> No. Have administrators set the allocation ratios for the resources they
Le 22/01/2017 22:40, Sylvain Bauza a écrit :
> Hey folks,
>
> tl;dr: should we GET /resource_providers for only the related resources
> that correspond to enabled filters ? Explanation below why even if I
> know we have a current consensus, maybe we should discuss again about it.
>
>
> I'm sti
On 01/22/2017 04:40 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hey folks,
tl;dr: should we GET /resource_providers for only the related resources
that correspond to enabled filters ?
No. Have administrators set the allocation ratios for the resources they
do not care about exceeding capacity to a very high num
Hey folks,
tl;dr: should we GET /resource_providers for only the related resources
that correspond to enabled filters ? Explanation below why even if I
know we have a current consensus, maybe we should discuss again about it.
I'm still trying to implement https://review.openstack.org/#/c/417961/
12 matches
Mail list logo
