Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

hello, Flavio, This thread is to discuss moving away from the "big tent" term, not removing some project. Removing a project will make this flavor disappear from the ice-cream counter, but this thread, it's to use another concept to describe projects under openstack project governance. If we

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Deprecate/Remove deferred_auth_method=password config option

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Zane Bitter wrote: [snip] > > I'm not sure whether this works with keystone v2 and anyone is using >> it or not. Keeping in mind that heat-cli is deprecated and keystone >> v3 is now the default, we've 2 options >> >> 1.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 21/06/17 06:18 +, joehuang wrote: hello, Flavio, Hi :D This thread is to discuss moving away from the "big tent" term, not removing some project. Removing a project will make this flavor disappear from the ice-cream counter, but this thread, it's to use another concept to describe

Re: [openstack-dev] [heat] Deprecate/Remove deferred_auth_method=password config option

On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Kaz Shinohara wrote: > Hi Rabi, > > > I still takes `deferred _auth_method=password` behalf of trusts because we > don't enable trusts in the Keystone side due to some internal reason. > The issues what you pointed are correct(e.g.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Hi, If we just want to replace "bigtent" concept to another concept which mentioned in this thread, many of them gave me the impression that there are still some projects more important than others, so that's why I suggest to use flat project list, and put stress "OPEN" stack here. Best

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler][placement] Trying to understand the proposed direction

On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 16:48 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 06/20/2017 09:51 AM, Eric Fried wrote: > > Nice Stephen! > > > > For those who aren't aware, the rendered version (pretty, so pretty) can > > be accessed via the gate-nova-docs-ubuntu-xenial jenkins job: > > > >

[openstack-dev] [publiccloud-wg] Reminder meeting PublicCloudWorkingGroup

Hi everyone, Don't forget todays meeting for the PublicCloudWorkingGroup. 1400 UTC in IRC channel #openstack-meeting-3 Etherpad: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/publiccloud-wg Goals: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SYDNEY_GOALS_publiccloud-wg Talk to you this afternoon! Tobias

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

Am Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:41:44 -0600 schrieb Chris Friesen : > On 06/20/2017 01:48 AM, Henning Schild wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We are using OpenStack for managing realtime guests. We modified > > it and contributed to discussions on how to model the realtime > > feature.

Re: [openstack-dev] diskimage builder works for trusty but not for xenial

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 08:44:45AM +0200, Ignazio Cassano wrote: > Hi all, > today I am creating openstack images with disk-image-create. > It works fine for centos and ubuntu trusty. > With xenial I got the following error: > > * Connection #0 to host cloud-images.ubuntu.com left intact >

[openstack-dev] diskimage builder works for trusty but not for xenial

Hi all, today I am creating openstack images with disk-image-create. It works fine for centos and ubuntu trusty. With xenial I got the following error: * Connection #0 to host cloud-images.ubuntu.com left intact Downloaded and cached

Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone][Mistral][Devstack] Confusion between auth_url and auth_uri in keystone middleware

Thanks for your help folks! I proposed a patch for mistral and it seems it works now https://review.openstack.org/#/c/473796 I'm not a great expert on this issue, so it will be great if someone from keystone team could review the patch. Best, Mike On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:15 AM, Jamie Lennox

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

Hi, Tricricle is based on core plugin interface, so if you want to refactory the interface, let us know whether it'll break Tricricle. And I don't know whether there other plugins are using this interface. And there is one conclusion in this

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][horizon][fwaas][vpnaas] fwaas/vpnaas dashboard split out

Hi Akihiro, While I understand the motivation to move these dashboards from openstack/horizon, what is the reason to prefer a distinct repo for the dashboard rather than hosting it in the main repo of these projects ? (networking-bgpvpn has had a dashboard for some time already, it is

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] nominating Abhishek Kekane for glance core

Thank you all for your positive responses. I will definitely put 100% efforts to justify my selection as core. Best Regards, Abhishek Kekane -Original Message- From: Brian Rosmaita [mailto:rosmaita.foss...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 4:47 PM To: OpenStack Development

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

Ok, we would like to help on that. How we can start? I think the issue I raise in that thread must be the first point to address and my second proposition seems to be the correct one. What do you think? But it will needs some time and not sure we'll be able to fix all service plugins loaded by

[openstack-dev] [monasca] New time and place of Monasca Team Meeting

Hello, this is just a reminder of the new place and time of the Monasca Team Meeting. It takes place weekly on Wednesday at 1400 UTC in #openstack-meeting See you there Witek __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

Zane Bitter wrote: > [...] > Until then it seems to me that the tradeoff is between decoupling it > from the particular cloud it's running on so that users can optionally > deploy it standalone (essentially Vish's proposed solution for the *aaS > services from many moons ago) vs. decoupling it

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][horizon][fwaas][vpnaas] fwaas/vpnaas dashboard split out

First of all, IMHO this approach is not a requirement. Each project can choose their preferred way. # Hopefully all dashboards are listed in the horizon plugin registry if you have a dashboard support. # https://docs.openstack.org/developer/horizon/install/plugin-registry.html The following is

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] nominating Abhishek Kekane for glance core

Having heard only affirmative responses, I've added Abhishek Kekane to the Glance core group, with all the rights and privileges pertaining thereto. Welcome to the Glance core team, Abhishek! cheers, brian On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Mikhail Fedosin wrote: > Wasn't

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][horizon][fwaas][vpnaas] fwaas/vpnaas dashboard split out

Some context here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115200.html On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 2:33 AM, Thomas Morin wrote: > Hi Akihiro, > > While I understand the motivation to move these dashboards from > openstack/horizon, what is the reason to

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler][placement] Trying to understand the proposed direction

On 06/21/2017 04:43 AM, sfinu...@redhat.com wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-20 at 16:48 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote: >> On 06/20/2017 09:51 AM, Eric Fried wrote: >>> Nice Stephen! >>> >>> For those who aren't aware, the rendered version (pretty, so pretty) can >>> be accessed via the

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

Why not just delete the service plugins you don't support from the default plugins dict? On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:45 AM, Édouard Thuleau wrote: > Ok, we would like to help on that. How we can start? > > I think the issue I raise in that thread must be the first point

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][horizon][fwaas][vpnaas] fwaas/vpnaas dashboard split out

Kevin Benton : > Some context here: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-April/115200.html > Thanks, I had missed this one. So, what I gather is that the only drawback noted for "(b) dashboard code in individual project" is "Requires extra efforts to support neutron and

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

Am Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:04:30 -0400 schrieb Luiz Capitulino : > On Tue, 20 Jun 2017 09:48:23 +0200 > Henning Schild wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > We are using OpenStack for managing realtime guests. We modified > > it and contributed to discussions

[openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

Hi All, Andy and I have taken a stab at defining some test scenarios for anal the different message bus technologies: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/1BGhFHDIoi We've started with tests for just the oslo.messaging layer to analyze throughput and latency as the number of message bus clients -

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo][ci] where to find the CI backlog and issues we're tracking

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 2:51 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote: > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 12:49 PM, Wesley Hayutin > wrote: > > Greetings, > > > > It's become apparent that everyone in the tripleo community may not be > aware > > of where CI specific work is

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible][designate][bind9] Looking for ways to limit users to adding hosts within fixed personal domain

Hi Graham, Many thank for your prompt reply; your suggestion is spot on for my current use case. Again, thanks. On another note, I see that designate has zone blacklisting that could be used to limit the names of newly created zones using a negative regex. But there is no zone whitelisting.

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] A proposal for hackathon to reduce deploy time of TripleO

Reminder: the sprint is starting today: - /join #openstack-sprint - tag relevant bugs in Launchpad to be found on https://bugs.launchpad.net/tripleo/+bugs?field.tag=deployment-time - create new bugs related to performances and tag them. Anyone is welcome to join the sprint, feel free to ping me

[openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

Hi nova devs, I would like to write functional tests to check the exact req/resp for each placement API for all supported versions similar to what is already done for other APIs under nova/tests/functional/api_sample_tests/api_samples/*. These request/response json samples can be used by the

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible][designate] Recommended way to inject the rndc.key into the designate container when using Bind9

Hi Andy, As ever, many thanks for the prompt reply. I'm going to work up a patch proposal and submit it as soon as possible. Kind regards, Lawrence From: Andy McCrae Sent: 20 June 2017 14:15 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible][designate][bind9] Looking for ways to limit users to adding hosts within fixed personal domain

On 21/06/17 13:26, Lawrence J. Albinson wrote: > Hi Graham, > > Many thank for your prompt reply; your suggestion is spot on for my current > use case. Again, thanks. > > On another note, I see that designate has zone blacklisting that could be > used to limit the names of newly created zones

Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] Stepping down from core

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 20/06/17 09:31 +1200, feilong wrote: >> >> Hi there, >> >> I've been a Glance core since 2013 and been involved in the Glance >> community even longer, so I care deeply about Glance. My situation right now >> is such

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Zane Bitter wrote: >> [...] >> Until then it seems to me that the tradeoff is between decoupling it >> from the particular cloud it's running on so that users can optionally >> deploy it standalone (essentially Vish's

[openstack-dev] Sydney Summit Call for Presentations Open Until July 14th

Hi everyone, You have less than a month to submit your speaking proposals for the OpenStack Summit Sydney , November 6-8, 2017. Submit your proposals here

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote: [...] > To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our > repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in > the world explore software. If you look at OpenStack on Github > now, it’s impossible to tell which

Re: [openstack-dev] diskimage builder works for trusty but not for xenial

On 06/21/2017 04:44 PM, Ignazio Cassano wrote: * Connection #0 to host cloud-images.ubuntu.com left intact Downloaded and cached http://cloud-images.ubuntu.com/xenial/current/xenial-server-cloudimg-amd64-root.tar.gz, having forced upstream caches to revalidate

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Vova, I really hope and wish for a reboot!. Please do note that the change proposed is only just a governance repo change. There is no one here who has proposed any retiring of the fuel repositories (process for retirement is here - [1]). Thanks, Dims [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-21 16:27:14 -0400 (-0400), Sean Dague wrote: [...] > I'd still also like to see us using that structure well, and > mirroring only things we tag as official to github.com/openstack, > and the rest to /openstack-ecosystem or something. [...] I can understand the sentiment, but we'd need

Re: [openstack-dev] [tripleo] Role updates

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 6:24 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Alex Schultz wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 6:58 AM, Dan Prince wrote: >>> On Fri, 2017-06-09 at 09:24 -0600, Alex Schultz wrote: Hey

Re: [openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

Hi Ken, Thanks for starting this ! I've made a first pass on the epad and left some notes and questions there. Best, Matthieu - Mail original - > De: "Ken Giusti" > À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

> From: Matt > On 6/21/2017 7:04 AM, Shewale, Bhagyashri wrote: > > I would like to write functional tests to check the exact req/resp > > for each placement API for all supported versions similar > > > > to what is already done for other APIs under > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

On 20 June 2017 at 00:09, Kevin Benton wrote: > The issue is mainly developer resources. Everyone currently working > upstream doesn't have the bandwidth to keep adding/reviewing the layers of > interfaces to make the DB optional that go untested. (None of the projects > that

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

On 21 June 2017 at 17:40, Édouard Thuleau wrote: > Hi, > > @Chaoyi, > I don't want to change the core plugin interface. But I'm not sure we > are talking about the same interface. I had a very quick look into the > tricycle code and I think it uses the

[openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2][drivers][openvswitch] Question

Hi Guys, I have a question in setup_physical_bridges funtion of neutron/plugins/ml2/drivers/openvswitch/agent/ovs_neutron_agent.py # block all untranslated traffic between bridges self.int_br.drop_port(in_port=int_ofport) br.drop_port(in_port=phys_ofport)

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

On 06/21/2017 11:55 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 6/21/2017 11:17 AM, Shamail Tahir wrote: >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Thierry Carrez >> > wrote: >> >> Shamail Tahir wrote: >> > In the past, governance has helped (on

Re: [openstack-dev] Required Ceph rbd image features

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:32 PM, Jon Bernard wrote: > I suspect you'd want to enable layering at minimum. I'd agree that layering is probably the most you'd want to enable for krbd-use cases as of today. The v4.9 kernel added support for exclusive-lock, but that probably

Re: [openstack-dev] Required Ceph rbd image features

Anyone else seen a problem with kernel rbd when ceph isn't fully up when an kernel rbd mount is attempted? the mount blocks as it should, but if ceph takes too long to start, it enventually enters a D state forever even though ceph comes up happpy. Its like it times out and stops trying. Only

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

On 06/21/2017 10:46 AM, Henning Schild wrote: Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:04:52 -0600 schrieb Chris Friesen : i guess you are talking about that section from [1]: We could use a host level tunable to just reserve a set of host pCPUs for running emulator threads

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

Several folks on this thread have talked about the different constituencies and problems we’re trying to solve with naming. Most of the people following this thread understand all of the terminology and governance we’ve defined, but that's still a very small percentage of people who care about

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-19 08:42:04 -0700 (-0700), Chris Hoge wrote: [...] > Why not bring back the name Stackforge and apply that to > unofficial projects? It’s short, descriptive, and unambiguous. [...] Logistical points aside, that name is strikingly similar to another and previously much more popular but

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 06/21/2017 02:52 PM, Lauren Sell wrote: > Two things we should address: > > 1) Make it more clear which projects are “officially” part of > OpenStack. It’s possible to find that information, but it’s not obvious. > I am one of the people who laments the demise of stackforge…it was very > clear

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 2017-06-21 09:20:42 -0700 (-0700), Clark Boylan wrote: [...] > A few days ago I suggested a variant of Thierry's suggestion below. Get > rid of the 'openstack' prefix entirely for hosting and use stackforge > for everything. Then officially governed OpenStack projects are hosted > just like any

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

Thank you Kevin. Lots of container (specific?) goodness here. -amrith -amrith -- Amrith Kumar Phone: +1-978-563-9590 On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Thanks for starting this difficult discussion. > > I think I agree with all the lessons learned

[openstack-dev] [tc][fuel] Making Fuel a hosted project

Folks, I sent a reply a couple of days ago, but somehow it got lost. The original message goes below Folks It is essentially true that Fuel is no longer being developed as almost 99% of people have left the project and are working on something else. May be, in the future, when the dust settles,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

to put my public cloud wg hat on, I think the lack of coordination is a common problems among OpenStack WGs but I think transitioning WGs to SIGs will help solving the issue alone. I think from my observations from existing WGs, the mechanism that are now in place works great, we have many

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:35 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2017-06-21 13:52:11 -0500 (-0500), Lauren Sell wrote: > [...] >> To make this actionable...Github is just a mirror of our >> repositories, but for better or worse it's the way most people in >> the world explore

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron][ml2][drivers][openvswitch] Question

Rules to allow aren't setup until the port is wired and it calls the functions like this: https://github.com/openstack/neutron/blob/master/neutron/plugins/ml2/drivers/openvswitch/agent/ovs_neutron_agent.py#L602-L606 On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Margin Hu wrote: > Hi

[openstack-dev] [stable]requirements] Bootstrapiing requirements-stable-core

Hi All, Recently it's been clear that we need a requirements-stable team. Until npw that's been handled by the release managers and the stable-maint-core team. With the merge of [1] The have the groundwork for that team. I'd like to nominate: * dmllr -- Dirk Mueller * prometheanfire

Re: [openstack-dev] [vitrage] First Vitrage Pike release by the end of this week

Is it done yet? How to fetch the released version for downstream developing? On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 2:17 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL/Kfar Sava) < ifat.a...@nokia.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Pike-2 milestone is at the end of this week, and although we are not > working by the milestones model (we are

Re: [openstack-dev] [Zun] Propose addition of Zun core team and removal notice

+1 to all from me. Welcome Shunli! And greate thanks to Dims and Yanyan!!. Best regards, Shu > -Original Message- > From: Kumari, Madhuri [mailto:madhuri.kum...@intel.com] > Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2017 12:30 PM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >

Re: [openstack-dev] [stable]requirements] Bootstrapiing requirements-stable-core

+1 from me. On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 6:48 PM, Tony Breeds wrote: > Hi All, > Recently it's been clear that we need a requirements-stable team. > Until npw that's been handled by the release managers and the > stable-maint-core team. > > With the merge of [1] The

Re: [openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

On 06/21/2017 09:23 AM, Ken Giusti wrote: Andy and I have taken a stab at defining some test scenarios for anal the different message bus... That was a particularly unfortunate choice of words. Best, -jay __ OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

On 06/21/2017 09:23 AM, Ken Giusti wrote: Andy and I have taken a stab at defining some test scenarios for anal the different message bus... That was a particularly unfortunatey choice of words. Best, -jay __ OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

Matt Riedemann wrote: > How does the re-branding or re-categorization of these groups solve the > actual feedback problem? If the problem is getting different people from > different groups together, how does this solve that? For example, how do > we get upstream developers aware of operator

Re: [openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 06/21/2017 09:23 AM, Ken Giusti wrote: > >> Andy and I have taken a stab at defining some test scenarios for anal the >> different message bus... >> > > That was a particularly unfortunatey choice of words. > > Ugh.

Re: [openstack-dev] [neutron] Do we still support core plugin not based on the ML2 framework?

Hi, @Chaoyi, I don't want to change the core plugin interface. But I'm not sure we are talking about the same interface. I had a very quick look into the tricycle code and I think it uses the NeutronDbPluginV2 interface [1] which implements the Neutron DB model. Our Contrail Neutron plugin

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

Hi, In the past, governance has helped (on the UC WG side) to reduce overlaps/duplication in WGs chartered for similar objectives. I would like to understand how we will handle this (if at all) with the new SIG proposa? Also, do we have to replace WGs as a concept or could SIG augment them? One

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague wrote: [...] I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into my head was "Friends of OpenStack" as a way to describe the openstack-hosted efforts that

Re: [openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

On 06/21/2017 11:31 AM, Ken Giusti wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Jay Pipes > wrote: On 06/21/2017 09:23 AM, Ken Giusti wrote: Andy and I have taken a stab at defining some test scenarios for anal the different

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

On 06/21/2017 02:42 AM, Henning Schild wrote: Am Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:41:44 -0600 schrieb Chris Friesen : Our goal is to reach a high packing density of realtime VMs. Our pragmatic first choice was to run all non-vcpu-threads on a shared set of pcpus where we also

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

Shamail Tahir wrote: > In the past, governance has helped (on the UC WG side) to reduce > overlaps/duplication in WGs chartered for similar objectives. I would > like to understand how we will handle this (if at all) with the new SIG > proposa? I tend to think that any overlap/duplication would

[openstack-dev] Required Ceph rbd image features

Hello, I'm working on identifying the required RBD image features to be compatible with both the nova-kvm and nova-lxd drivers. The requirement derives from nova-lxd using the kernel driver for Ceph, while nova-kvm handles rbd through userspace. Thank you, Chris MacNaughton

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][placement] Add API Sample tests for Placement APIs

On 6/21/2017 7:04 AM, Shewale, Bhagyashri wrote: I would like to write functional tests to check the exact req/resp for each placement API for all supported versions similar to what is already done for other APIs under nova/tests/functional/api_sample_tests/api_samples/*. These

[openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

Hi everyone, One of the areas identified as a priority by the Board + TC + UC workshop in March was the need to better close the feedback loop and make unanswered requirements emerge. Part of the solution is to ensure that groups that look at specific use cases, or specific problem spaces within

[openstack-dev] [Acceleration]Cyborg Weekly Meeting 2017.06.21

Hi team, A kind reminder for today's meeting about 20mins later on #openstack-cyborg, agenda at https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Meetings/CyborgTeamMeeting#Agenda_for_next_meeting -- Zhipeng (Howard) Huang Standard Engineer IT Standard & Patent/IT Product Line Huawei Technologies Co,. Ltd

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:32:42 -0400 schrieb Luiz Capitulino : > On Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:47:27 +0200 > Henning Schild wrote: > > > > What is your solution? > > > > We have a kilo-based prototype that introduced emulator_pin_set in > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [FEMDC][MassivelyDistributed] Strawman proposal for message bus analysis

Hi Ken, Please check scenarios and reports that exist in Performance Docs. In particular you may be interested in: * O.M.Simulator - https://github.com/openstack/oslo.messaging/blob/master/tools/simulator.py * MQ performance scenario -

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

On 6/21/2017 9:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hi everyone, One of the areas identified as a priority by the Board + TC + UC workshop in March was the need to better close the feedback loop and make unanswered requirements emerge. Part of the solution is to ensure that groups that look at specific

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

On 21/06/17 01:49, Mark Kirkwood wrote: On 21/06/17 02:08, Jay Pipes wrote: On 06/20/2017 09:42 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Does "service VM" need to be a first-class thing? Akanda creates them, using a service user. The VMs are tied to a "router" which is the billable resource that the user

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

One of key components which, imho, made SIGs successful in k8s is infrastructure behind it. When someone proposes an issue, they can tag SIG to it. Everyone in this SIG will be notified that there is an issue they might be interested it, they check it out and provide feedback. That also creates

Re: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

There already is a user side tools for deploying plumbing onto your own cloud. stuff like Tessmaster itself. I think the win is being able to extend that k8s with the ability to declaratively request database clusters and manage them. Its all about the commons. If you build a Tessmaster clone

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

> On Jun 21, 2017, at 9:20 AM, Clark Boylan wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: >> On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Sean Dague

Re: [openstack-dev] realtime kvm cpu affinities

Am Wed, 21 Jun 2017 10:04:52 -0600 schrieb Chris Friesen : > On 06/21/2017 09:45 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > > On 06/21/2017 02:42 AM, Henning Schild wrote: > >> Am Tue, 20 Jun 2017 10:41:44 -0600 > >> schrieb Chris Friesen : > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Shamail Tahir wrote: > > In the past, governance has helped (on the UC WG side) to reduce > > overlaps/duplication in WGs chartered for similar objectives. I would > > like to understand how we will handle this (if

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Moving away from "big tent" terminology

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017, at 08:48 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > On 06/19/2017 05:42 PM, Chris Hoge wrote: > > > > > >> On Jun 15, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > >> > >> Sean Dague wrote: > >>> [...] > >>> I think those are all fine. The other term that popped into

Re: [openstack-dev] Required Ceph rbd image features

* Chris MacNaughton wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on identifying the required RBD image features to be compatible > with both the nova-kvm and nova-lxd drivers. The requirement derives from > nova-lxd using the kernel driver for Ceph, while nova-kvm handles rbd

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Turning TC/UC workgroups into OpenStack SIGs

On 6/21/2017 11:17 AM, Shamail Tahir wrote: On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 12:02 PM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: Shamail Tahir wrote: > In the past, governance has helped (on the UC WG side) to reduce > overlaps/duplication in WGs