On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding to this...
* Moved the _obj_classes registry magic out of ObjectMetaClass and into
its own method for easier use. Since this is a subclass based
implementation,
having a
Hello everyone,
As some of you already know - in Hong-Kong during the last OpenStack
Summit - we ran a design session in the Nova topic titled Docker
support in OpenStack. The session concluded in developing a new
OpenStack service for supporting containers instead of modifying Nova
to support
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/18/2013 02:35 PM, Mike Spreitzer wrote:
There were some concerns expressed at the summit about scheduler
scalability in Nova, and a little recollection of Boris' proposal to
keep the needed state in memory.
While
Hi All,
Thank you everybody for your input. It is clear that any solution requires
changes at the plugin level (we were trying to avoid that). So, I am
wondering if a re-factor of this code is needed of not (maybe not).
The ML2 solution is probably the best alternative right now, so we may go
for
Hi,
I read the etherpad for firmware update.I have a comment:
* if the node already has an instance on it, do we want to be able to
update the firmware
o tenant shouldn't care/know about firmware updates
o need to migrate off first, so no
o i.e. we can't disrupt the
Hi All,
We are planning to implement quantum security groups using openflows for
ovs plugin instead of iptables which is the case now.
Doing so we can avoid the extra linux bridge which is connected between the
vnet device and the ovs bridge, which is given as a work around since ovs
bridge is
Hey all
Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody give a
really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate service?
It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is, after all, just
another hypervisor type, or so it seems.
(I can’t find the
Same question here. I also wonder why a new service. Yes the capabilities
might be different (but then can't this be fixed this is nova by making
nova support different capabilities in different hypervisors better). The
api's also might be different (but then can't this be fixed by making the
api
On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Kanthi P pavuluri.kan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
We are planning to implement quantum security groups using openflows for ovs
plugin instead of iptables which is the case now.
Doing so we can avoid the extra linux bridge which is connected between the
vnet
Hi Kanthi,
I’ve already started the implementation (prototype phase) of such a blueprint,
ovs-firewall-driver
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/neutron/+spec/ovs-firewall-driver.
Amir
On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:26 PM, Kanthi P
pavuluri.kan...@gmail.commailto:pavuluri.kan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi
Is the open flow rule stateful?
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 6:26 AM, Kanthi P pavuluri.kan...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
We are planning to implement quantum security groups using openflows for
ovs plugin instead of iptables which is the case now.
Doing so we can avoid the extra linux bridge
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 17:24 +, Duncan Thomas wrote:
Random OSLO updates with no list of what changed, what got fixed etc
are unlikely to get review attention - doing such a review is
extremely difficult. I was -2ing them and asking for more info, but
they keep popping up. I'm really not
I've created blueprints for Fuel VMware hypervisor integration [1] and Fuel
modularization [2] and would appreciate any feedback.
Supporting a new hypervisor in Fuel creates some points on the current
methodology that need to be refactored in order to be able to provide for
multiple providers,
So we are close to being able to start doing this. The current whitelist
is here
https://github.com/openstack/tempest/blob/master/etc/whitelist.yaml. I
have a find-errors script that watches for successful builds and pulls
out the non-whitelisted errors. For the past few weeks I have been
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:09 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
Phil Day discussed this at the summit and I have finally gotten around
to posting a POC of this.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57053/
Hi, Joe, why you think the DB is not exact state in your followed commit
message? I think the DB is
Hi,
On Thu, 2013-10-10 at 15:00 +, Swartzlander, Ben wrote:
Please consider our formal request for incubation status of the Manila
project:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Manila_Overview
Note that the Manila application was discussed at last week's TC
meeting.
I tried to take some
Inline.
- Original Message -
| From: Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com
| To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
| Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 2:46:02 PM
| Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Congress: an open policy framework
|
| On 11/14/2013 11:39 AM, Tim Hinrichs wrote:
| I completely agree
On 11/18/2013 02:28 PM, Stuart Fox wrote:
Hey all
Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody give a
really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate service?
It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is, after all, just
another hypervisor
Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody
give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate
service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is,
after all, just another hypervisor type, or so it seems.
But it's not just another
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, yunhong jiang
yunhong.ji...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:09 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
Phil Day discussed this at the summit and I have finally gotten around
to posting a POC of this.
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/57053/
Hi, Joe,
On 18/11/13 12:57 +0100, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 16/11/13 11:15, Angus Salkeld wrote:
On 15/11/13 08:46 -0600, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 3:57 AM, Zane Bitter zbit...@redhat.com wrote:
On 15/11/13 02:48, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:40 PM,
Hi Kanthi,
Just to reiterate what Kyle said, we do have an internal implementation
using flows that looks very similar to security groups. Jun Park was the
guy that wrote this and is looking to get it upstreamed. I think he'll be
back in the office late next week. I'll point him to this thread
Excerpts from Sam Alba's message of 2013-11-18 14:05:47 -0800:
Hello everyone,
As some of you already know - in Hong-Kong during the last OpenStack
Summit - we ran a design session in the Nova topic titled Docker
support in OpenStack. The session concluded in developing a new
OpenStack
Hi,
Based on our discussion in design summit , I have redone the service_id binding
with roles
BPhttps://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/serviceid-binding-with-role-definition.
I have added a new BP (link below) along with detailed use case to support
this BP.
Hi Eugene!
Option #2 sounds good.
A few Qs:
I assume we would not need to roll the API version?
Have there been any detailed proposals on the 'loadbalancer' CRUD operations?
In particular, the ability to attach multiple VIPs as was discussed in Hong
Kong.
In general, I think the loadbalancer
Hi Neutron/VPNaaS Team,
I am trying to configure VPN with latest Havana releaseand I have some
concerns regarding gateway VM set-up. While configuring a VPN with
strongSwan or OpenSwan, we have to disable the port security to enable port
forwarding which makes the gateway VM vulnerable to IP
On 11/18/2013 04:58 PM, Christopher Armstrong wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com
mailto:d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding to this...
* Moved the _obj_classes registry magic out of ObjectMetaClass
and into
its
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 15:32 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, yunhong jiang
yunhong.ji...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:09 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
Phil Day discussed this at the summit and I have finally
On 11/18/2013 06:30 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody
give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate
service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is,
after all, just another hypervisor type, or so it
An idea related to this, what would need to be done to make the DB have the
exact state that a compute node is going through (and therefore the scheduler
would not make unreliable/racey decisions, even when there are multiple
schedulers). It's not like we are dealing with a system which can not
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 5:18 PM, yunhong jiang
yunhong.ji...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 15:32 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM, yunhong jiang
yunhong.ji...@linux.intel.com wrote:
On Mon, 2013-11-18 at 14:09 -0800, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/18/2013 06:30 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody
give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate
service? It sounds like it should fit within
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Christopher Armstrong
chris.armstr...@rackspace.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Dan Smith d...@danplanet.com wrote:
Sorry for the delay in responding to this...
* Moved the _obj_classes registry magic out of ObjectMetaClass and
into
its
Looks good Eugene!
What about 'status' on the loadbalancer instance? This might be the aggregate
of all the VIP statuses. (worst of VIP[0-N] )
Peter.
From: Eugene Nikanorov [mailto:enikano...@mirantis.com]
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 5:15 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
On Nov 14, 2013, at 10:00 AM, Monty Taylor mord...@inaugust.com wrote:
On 11/13/2013 08:08 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On 14 November 2013 13:59, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
This is an area where we actually have consensus in our docs (have had
for a while), the reviewer was being
On 11/18/2013 05:21 PM, Edgar Magana wrote:
Hi All,
Thank you everybody for your input. It is clear that any solution requires
changes at the plugin level (we were trying to avoid that). So, I am
wondering if a re-factor of this code is needed of not (maybe not).
The ML2 solution is
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@yahoo-inc.comwrote:
An idea related to this, what would need to be done to make the DB have
the exact state that a compute node is going through (and therefore the
scheduler would not make unreliable/racey decisions, even when there are
Greetings,
Every OpenStack program is supposed to have a mission statement. The
Compute program does not have one yet [1]. Here is a first attempt at
it. Let me know what you think.
To implement services and associated libraries to provide massively
scalable, on demand, self service
On 11/18/2013 07:01 PM, Tiwari, Arvind wrote:
Hi,
Based on our discussion in design summit , I have redone the
service_id binding with roles BP
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/serviceid-binding-with-role-definition.
I have added a new BP (link below) along with detailed use
Doug Hellmann wrote on 2013-11-19:
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Devananda van der Veen
devananda@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Lianhao Lu,
I briefly summarized my recollection of that session in this blueprint:
I agree that we should embrace eventual consistency (under certain cases), but
it begs the question of what are u eventually consistent on (maybe u shouldn't
be eventually consistent on resource knowledge). U don't have to be eventually
consistent on all the things.
So lets assume we are
On 11/18/2013 07:58 PM, Krishna Raman wrote:
I have also set up a doodle poll
at http://doodle.com/w7y5qcdvq9i36757 to gather a times when a majority
of us are available to discuss on IRC.
What time zone are these times in?
--
Russell Bryant
___
Hey *
Does ironic fall under the Compute banner? If so, the statement needs a
little tweek.
-
BR,
Stuart Fox
Manager, Systems Engineering
Demonware
+7783753701
On 2013-11-18 5:55 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
Every OpenStack program is
Folks:
The agenda for this week's ML2 meeting has been posted. I'd like
to focus 30 minutes or so on ML2 testing, and the rest on the
TypeDriver Summit Session. We need to add Tempest tests
around the main Open Source components of ML2. What is
lacking now is LinuxBridge and L2 Population Tempest
I think the plus of avoiding decorating things isn't really a huge
win, and actually i think takes clarity away.
Hence the (meh) in my list :)
This wasn't really a sticking point when we were getting reviews on the
original base infrastructure, so I'm surprised people are so vehement
now.
One other note: The meeting is still at 1400UTC, which for
people in most parts of the US means it's an hour earlier
now. If this meeting time isn't good for folks, we can discuss
moving this to a different time.
Thanks,
Kyle
On Nov 18, 2013, at 8:49 PM, Kyle Mestery (kmestery)
On Nov 18, 2013, at 6:05 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
On 11/18/2013 07:58 PM, Krishna Raman wrote:
I have also set up a doodle poll
at http://doodle.com/w7y5qcdvq9i36757 to gather a times when a majority
of us are available to discuss on IRC.
What time zone are these
On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
Every OpenStack program is supposed to have a mission statement. The
Compute program does not have one yet [1]. Here is a first attempt at
it. Let me know what you think.
To implement services and
On 11/19/2013 12:01 AM, Krishna Raman wrote:
On Nov 18, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Greetings,
Every OpenStack program is supposed to have a mission statement. The
Compute program does not have one yet [1]. Here is a first attempt at
it. Let me know what
Hi All,
Greetings!!!
We are in process of implementing the TaskFlow 0.1 in Cinder for copy volume
to image and delete volume.
I have added two blueprints for the same.
1. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/cinder/+spec/copy-volume-to-image-task-flow
2.
On 18.11.2013 22:05, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Greetings all stackers,
I propose that we add Anastasia Karpinska to the taskflow-core team [1].
[...]
+1
--
WBR,
Ivan A. Melnikov
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Steve Baker sba...@redhat.com wrote on 18.11.2013 21:52:04:
From: Steve Baker sba...@redhat.com
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 18.11.2013 21:54
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT software configuration
refined after design summit discussions
On 11/19/2013 02:22 AM, Thomas
101 - 152 of 152 matches
Mail list logo
