oud operational by
> definition, so I think this is probably OK?
>
> Steve
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Christian Schwede [mailto:cschw...@redhat.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2017 6:14 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>
Hello everyone,
there was an earlier discussion on $subject last year [1] regarding a
bug when upscaling or replacing nodes in TripleO [2].
Shortly summarized: Swift rings are built on each node separately, and
if adding or replacing nodes (or disks) this will break the rings
because they are no
> we're trying to address in TripleO a couple of use cases for which we'd
> like to trigger a Mistral workflow from a Heat template.
>
> One example where this would be useful is the creation of the Swift
> rings, which need some data related to the Heat stack (like the list of
> Swift nodes and t
Hello,
kindly asking for a FFE for a required setting to improve Swift-based
TripleO deployments:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/358643/
This is required to land the last patch in a series of TripleO-doc patches:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/293311/
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/360353
On 04.08.16 15:39, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> On 08/04/2016 01:26 PM, Christian Schwede wrote:
>> On 04.08.16 10:27, Giulio Fidente wrote:
>>> On 08/02/2016 09:36 PM, Christian Schwede wrote:
>>>> Hello everyone,
>>>
>>> thanks Christian,
>>&g
On 04.08.16 10:27, Giulio Fidente wrote:
> On 08/02/2016 09:36 PM, Christian Schwede wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>
> thanks Christian,
>
>> I'd like to improve the Swift deployments done by TripleO. There are a
>> few problems today when deployed with the cu
Thanks Steven for your feedback! Please see my answers inline.
On 02.08.16 23:46, Steven Hardy wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2016 at 09:36:45PM +0200, Christian Schwede wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I'd like to improve the Swift deployments done by TripleO. There are a
I'm curious about your thoughts!
Thanks,
Christian
--
Christian Schwede
_
Red Hat GmbH
Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11-15, 85630 Grasbrunn,
Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mar
Hello Jonathan,
On 18.02.15 18:13, Halterman, Jonathan wrote:
>>> 1. Swift should allow authorized services to place a given number
>>> of object replicas onto a particular rack, and onto separate
>>> racks.
>>
>> This is already possible if you use zones and regions in your ring
>> files. For e
Hello Jonathan,
On 17.02.15 22:17, Halterman, Jonathan wrote:
> Various services desire the ability to control the location of data
> placed in Swift in order to minimize network saturation when moving data
> to compute, or in the case of services like Hadoop, to ensure that
> compute can be moved
On 14.11.14 20:43, Tim Bell wrote:
> It would need to be tiered (i.e. migrate whole collections rather than
> files) and a local catalog would be needed to map containers to tapes.
> Timeouts would be an issue since we are often waiting hours for recall
> (to ensure that multiple recalls for the sa
Hi,
Am 04.04.14 11:14, schrieb Shyam Prasad N:
> I have a question regarding the ring building process in a swift cluster.
> Many sources online suggest building the rings using ring-builder and
> scp the generated ring files to all the nodes in the cluster.
> What I'm trying to understand is if t
Hi Matthieu,
Am 22.01.14 20:02, schrieb Matthieu Huin:
> The idea is to have a middleware checking a domain's current usage
> against a limit set in the configuration before allowing an upload.
> The domain id can be extracted from the token, then used to query
> keystone for a list of projects be
Am 02.12.13 17:10, schrieb Gregory Holt:
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:48 AM, Christian Schwede
> wrote:
>
>> That sounds great! Is someone already working on this (I know about
>> the ongoing DiskFile refactoring) or even a blueprint available?
>
> There is https://blueprint
Am 02.12.13 15:47, schrieb Gregory Holt:
> Achieving this transparently is part of the ongoing plans, starting
> with things like the DiskFile refactoring and SSync. The idea is to
> isolate the direct disk access from other servers/tools, something
> that (for instance) RSync has today. Once the i
Hello together,
I'd like to discuss a way to increase the partition power of an existing
Swift cluster.
This is most likely interesting for smaller clusters that are growing
beyond their original planed size.
As discussed earlier [1] a rehashing is required after changing the
partition power to m
Thanks John for the summary - and all contributors for their work!
Others are looking in to how to grow clusters (changing the partition
power)
I'm interested who else is also working on this - I successfully
increased partition power of several (smaller) clusters and would like
to discuss m
A solution to this might be to set the default policy as a configuration
setting in the proxy. If you want a replicated swift cluster just allow
this policy in the proxy and set it to default. The same for EC cluster,
just set the allowed policy to EC. If you want both (and let your users
decide wh
18 matches
Mail list logo