Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposed Changes to the Core Team ...

TG in Denver last week. Based on that > > discussion I have reached out to John Griffith and Winston D (Huang > Zhiteng) > > and asked if they felt they could continue to be a part of the Core > Team. > > Both agreed that it was time to relinquish their titles. > > > > So, I am

Re: [openstack-dev] [docs][cinder] about cinder volume qos

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 2:22 PM Jay S Bryant wrote: > > > On 9/10/2018 7:17 AM, Rambo wrote: > > Hi,all > > At first,I find it is supported that we can define hard performance > limits for each volume in doc.openstack.org[1].But only can define hard > performance limits for each volume

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] about block device driver

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 8:44 AM Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 7/16/2018 4:20 AM, Gorka Eguileor wrote: > > If I remember correctly the driver was deprecated because it had no > > maintainer or CI. In Cinder we require our drivers to have both, > > otherwise we can't guarantee that they actually

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Update attachments on replication failover

On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 9:34 AM, Walter Boring wrote: > I think you might be able to get away with just calling os-brick's > connect_volume again without the need to call disconnect_volume first. > calling disconnect_volume wouldn't be good for volumes that are being > used,

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Update attachments on replication failover

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:47 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/26/2018 9:28 PM, John Griffith wrote: > >> I'm also wondering how much of the extend actions we can leverage here, >> but I haven't looked through all of that yet.​ >> > > The o

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Update attachments on replication failover

On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 2:13 PM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/26/2018 8:09 PM, John Griffith wrote: > >> I'm interested in looking at creating a mechanism to "refresh" all of the >> existing/current attachments as part of the Cinder F

[openstack-dev] [cinder][nova] Update attachments on replication failover

Hey Everyone, Something I've been looking at with Cinder's replication (sort of the next step in the evolution if you will) is the ability to refresh/renew in-use volumes that were part of a migration event. We do something similar with extend-volume on the Nova side through the use of Instance

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Switching to longer development cycles

On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Chris Jones wrote: > > [...] > > For me the first thing that comes to mind with this proposal, is how > > would the milestones/FF/etc be arranged within that year? As I've raised > > previously on this list [0], I

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Should we make rebuild + new image on a volume-backed instance fail fast?

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > This came up in IRC discussion the other day, but we didn't dig into it > much given we were all (2 of us) exhausted talking about rebuild. > > But we have had several bugs over the years where people expect the root >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [election] NON nomination for TC

On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 10:03 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > I'd like to announce that after 4 years serving on the OpenStack > Technical Committee, I will not be running in this fall's > election. Over the last 4 years we've navigated some rough seas > together, including the transition

Re: [openstack-dev] removing screen from devstack - RSN

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/07/2017 04:54 PM, Eric Fried wrote: > >> All- >> >> The plain pdb doc patch [1] is merging. >> >> On clarkb's suggestion, I took a look at remote-pdb [2], and it >> turned >> out to be easy-peasy to use. I

Re: [openstack-dev] removing screen from devstack - RSN

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 09/07/2017 01:52 PM, Eric Fried wrote: > >> John- >> >> You're not the only one for whom the transition to systemd has >> been >> painful. >> >> However... >> >> It *is* possible (some would argue just

Re: [openstack-dev] removing screen from devstack - RSN

penstack-dev and I can talk you through it. > > [1] https://docs.openstack.org/devstack/latest/systemd.html > > Thanks, > Eric Fried (efried) > > On 09/07/2017 12:34 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] removing screen from devstack - RSN

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 11:29 AM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Please don't, some of us have no issues with screen and use it extensively > for debugging. Unless there's a viable option using systemd I fail to > understand why this is such a big deal.

Re: [openstack-dev] removing screen from devstack - RSN

Please don't, some of us have no issues with screen and use it extensively for debugging. Unless there's a viable option using systemd I fail to understand why this is such a big deal. I've been using devstack in screen for a long time without issue, and I still use rejoin that supposedly didn't

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Proposing TommyLikeHu for Cinder core

+1 On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 8:50 AM, yang, xing wrote: > +1! Tommy is great addition to Cinder core team. > > Thanks, > Xing > > > > > From: Sean McGinnis [sean.mcgin...@gmx.com] > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 4:07 AM > To:

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Requirements for re-adding Gluster support

On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:30:49PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > > On 2017-07-26 12:56:55 +0200 (+0200), Niels de Vos wrote: > > [...] > > > My current guess is that adding a 3rd party CI [3] for Gluster is > > >

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

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 8:59 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

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

On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 3:15 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Back in 2014, OpenStack was facing a problem. Our project structure, > inherited from days where Nova, Swift and friends were the only game in > town, was not working anymore. The "integrated

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Is there interest in an admin-api to refresh volume connection info?

On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 7:58 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > Nova stores the output of the Cinder os-initialize_connection info API in > the Nova block_device_mappings table, and uses that later for making volume > connections. > > This data can get out of whack or need to be

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Target classes in Cinder

gainst it. Meh... ok, never mind.​ > > > Jay > > On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 4:14 PM Eric Harney <ehar...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 06/02/2017 03:47 PM, John Griffith wrote: >> > Hey Everyone, >> > >> > So quite a while back we int

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Target classes in Cinder

On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:11 PM, Eric Harney <ehar...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 06/02/2017 03:47 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > Hey Everyone, > > > > So quite a while back we introduced a new model for dealing with target > > management in the drivers (ie initial

[openstack-dev] [cinder] Target classes in Cinder

Hey Everyone, So quite a while back we introduced a new model for dealing with target management in the drivers (ie initialize_connection, ensure_export etc). Just to summarize a bit: The original model was that all of the target related stuff lived in a base class of the base drivers. Folks

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuxi][kuryr] Where to commit codes for Fuxi-golang

t; I have committed a patch[1] to add a new repository to Openstack. Please >> take a look at it. Thanks very much! >> >> [1]: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468635 >> >> Best Wishes! >> zengchen >> >> >> >> >> >> 在 2017-0

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuxi][kuryr] Where to commit codes for Fuxi-golang

fore charing ahead on new repos etc. Doesn't matter much to me though.​ > >Thanks very much! > > Best Wishes! > zengchen > > > > > At 2017-05-25 22:47:29, "John Griffith" <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 25, 20

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuxi][kuryr] Where to commit codes for Fuxi-golang

ed port the code back to OpenStack > > [1]https://github.com/opensds/opensds/blob/master/pkg/dock/ > plugins/connector/connector.go > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:47 PM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 25, 2017 a

Re: [openstack-dev] [fuxi][kuryr] Where to commit codes for Fuxi-golang

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 5:50 AM, zengchen wrote: > Very sorry to foget attaching the link for bp of rewriting Fuxi with go > language. > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuxi/+spec/convert-to-golang > > > At 2017-05-25 19:46:54, "zengchen" wrote: > > Hi

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 3:42 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > > > >> If it's just too much debt and risk of slippery slope type arguments on > >> the Nova side (and that's fair, after lengthy

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Supporting volume_type when booting from volume

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 10:13 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 5/23/2017 9:56 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > >> Is it entirely unreasonable to turn the question around and ask why, >> given it is such a commonly requested feature, the Nova team are so >> resistant to it? >> > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, > > I had heard this a few time in Boston Summit. So want to put this to bed :) > > -- Dims > > On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:43 PM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> > wro

Re: [openstack-dev] [go][all] Settling on gophercloud as the go based API library for all OpenStack projects

On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 8:54 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Folks, > > This has come up several times in various conversations. > > Can we please stop activity on > https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/golang-client/ and just > settle down on

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] OpenStack moving both too fast and too slow at the same time

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 05/05/2017 10:48 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > > Would it be accurate to say, then, that from your perpsective the >> tendency of OpenStack to adopt new projects willy nilly contributes >> to the sense of features

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Is Cinder still maintained?

On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Julien Danjou wrote: > Hi, > > I've posted a refactoring patch that simplifies tooz (read: remove > technical debt) usage more than a month ago, and I got 0 review since > then: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/447079 > > I'm a bit

Re: [openstack-dev] [api][qa][tc][nova][cinder] Testing of a microversioned world

e part of "Volume API" of > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/tempest-api-versions-in-pike > > Thanks > Ken Ohmichi > > --- > > 2017-03-10 11:37 GMT-08:00 John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com>: > > Hey Everyone, > > > > So along the lines o

Re: [openstack-dev] [api][qa][tc][nova][cinder] Testing of a microversioned world

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 12:37 PM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Everyone, > > So along the lines of an earlier thread that went out regarding testing of > deprecated API's and Tempest etc [1]. > > Now that micro-versions are *the API versioning

[openstack-dev] [api][qa][tc][nova][cinder] Testing of a microversioned world

Hey Everyone, So along the lines of an earlier thread that went out regarding testing of deprecated API's and Tempest etc [1]. Now that micro-versions are *the API versioning scheme to rule them all* one question I've not been able to find an answer for is what we're going to promise here for

Re: [openstack-dev] [api][qa][tc][glance][keystone][cinder] Testing of deprecated API versions

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 9:51 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > > > > As far as I can tell: > > - Cinder v1 if I'm not mistaken has been deprecated in Juno, so it's > > deprecated in all supported releases. > > - Glance v1 has been deprecated in Newton, so it's deprecated in all

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Schedule Instances according to Local disk based Volume?

On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 7:18 PM, Zhenyu Zheng wrote: > Matt, > > Thanks for the information, I will check that; But still I think the user > demand here is to use local disk from > compute node as block device, as the data can be remained if the old vm > got deleted,

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Should nova just default to use cinder v3 in Pike?

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Matt Riedemann <mriede...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/11/2017 11:47 AM, John Griffith wrote: > >> >> It seems like just moving Nova to V3 in Pike would alleviate quite a few >> snarls here. The fact that V3.0 is just pointing back to

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] Should nova just default to use cinder v3 in Pike?

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > While talking about [1] yesterday and trying to figure out how to > configure nova to use cinder v3 in the CI jobs in Pike, things got a bit > messy from the CI job configuration perspective. > > My initial plan was to

Re: [openstack-dev] Mitaka - Unable to attach volume to VM

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 9:04 PM, Sam Huracan wrote: > Hi Sean, > > I've checked 'openstack volume list', the state of all volume is avaiable, > and I can download image to volume. > I also use Ceph as other Cinder volume backend, and issue is similarly. > Same log. > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 10/03/2016 12:46 PM, Edward Leafe wrote: > > > We are fortunate in that all of the candidates are exceptionally > well-qualified, and those elected have put in excellent service while on > the TC. But one thing I'm afraid of

Re: [openstack-dev] [elections][tc]Thoughts on the TC election process

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Oct 4, 2016, at 11:54 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > >> In French, "prétendre" has a connotation of "profess" or simply > >> "say", which is very different from the more negative connotation > >> of

Re: [openstack-dev] TC Candidacy

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Clay Gerrard <clay.gerr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 8:34 PM, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> I think what's more important and critical is the future and where >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] open question to the candidates

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 9:30 AM, gordon chung wrote: > hi, > > as there are many candidates this TC election, i figured i'd ask a > question to better understand the candidates from the usual sales pitch > in self-nominations. hopefully, this will give some insights into the >

[openstack-dev] TC Candidacy

Hey Everyone, Some of you may know me, I've been around the OpenStack community for a while (longer than some, shorter than others). I'm not an "uber hipster", or a "super cool bro-grammer", or even a "mega hacker" trying to write the most clever code possible to impress everyone. I am however

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][sahara] LVM vs BDD drivers performance tests results

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Michał Dulko <michal.du...@intel.com> wrote: > On 09/20/2016 05:48 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Duncan Thomas > > <duncan.tho...@gmail.com <mailto:duncan.tho...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][sahara] LVM vs BDD drivers performance tests results

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > On 20 September 2016 at 16:24, Nikita Konovalov > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> From Sahara (and Hadoop workload in general) use-case the reason we used >> BDD was a complete absence of any

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][sahara] LVM vs BDD drivers performance tests results

to LIO seems worthwhile - I'd suggest > being cautious with deprecation rather than aggressive though - aiming to > change the default in 'O' then planning the rest based on how that goes. > > On 19 September 2016 at 21:54, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >&

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][sahara] LVM vs BDD drivers performance tests results

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Ivan Kolodyazhny <e...@e0ne.info> wrote: > + [sahara] because they are primary consumer of the BDD. > > John, > Thanks for the answer. My comments are inline. > > Regards, > Ivan Kolodyazhny, > http://blog.e0ne.info/ > > O

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] FFE request for RBD replication

Given the the patch is up and well on its way I don't know why this would be a problem. FWIW ya get my +1 On Sep 9, 2016 1:34 PM, "Gorka Eguileor" wrote: > Hi, > > As some of you may know, Jon Bernard (jbernard on IRC) has been working > on the RBD v2.1 replication

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Sep 9, 2016 08:26, "Ben Swartzlander" <b...@swartzlander.org> wrote: > > On 09/08/2016 04:41 PM, Duncan Thomas wrote: >> >> On 8 September 2016 at 20:17, John Griffith <john.griffi...@gmail.com >> <mailto:john.griffi...@gmail.com>> wrot

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Thierry Carrez <thie...@openstack.org> wrote: > John Griffith wrote: > > ​I think Sean Dague made some really good points and I'd tend to lean > > that way. Honestly charters, bylaws, governance etc shift or are > > rewritten fairly

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Timeframe for future elections & "Release stewards"

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote: > On 9/8/2016 6:42 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > >> On 09/08/2016 05:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> >>> Sean Dague wrote: >>> >> >> >>> So... the difference between your proposal and mine is: you force the >>> PTL to

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 11:04 AM, Jeremy Stanley wrote: > On 2016-09-08 09:32:20 +0100 (+0100), Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > That policy is referring to libraries (ie, python modules that we'd > > actually "import" at the python level), while the list above seems to be > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Thu, Sep 8, 2016 at 2:32 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 10:24:09AM +0200, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Avishay Traeger wrote: > > > There are a number of drivers that require closed-source tools to > > > communicate with the storage. 3 others that

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] moving driver to open source

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Alon Marx wrote: > I want to share our plans to open the IBM Storage driver source code. > Historically we started our way in cinder way back (in Essex if I'm not > mistaken) ​You're mistaken, Cinder didn't exist at that time... but it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:19 PM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > One other thing to note is that while a flavor constrains how much local > > disk is used it does not constrain volume size at all. So a user can > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Andrew Laski wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016, at 03:44 AM, kostiantyn.volenbovs...@swisscom.com > wrote: > > Hi, > > option 1 (=that's what patches suggest) sounds totally fine. > > Option 3 > Allow block device mappings, when present, to

Re: [openstack-dev] [gate] [cinder] A current major cause for gate failure - cinder backups

Patch is up, see LP bug reference in Lisa message. On Aug 24, 2016 10:35, "Jay S. Bryant" wrote: > Lisa, > > Great debug! Thank you! > > Let me know when a patch is up and I will take a look. > > Jay > > On 08/24/2016 02:24 AM, Li, Xiaoyan wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][drivers] Backend and volume health reporting

On Sun, Aug 14, 2016 at 2:11 AM, Avishay Traeger wrote: > Hi all, > I would like to propose working on a new feature for Ocata to provide > health information for Cinder backends and volumes. Currently, a volume's > status basically reflects the last management

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > > I was leaning towards a separate repo until I started thinking about all > the overhead and complications this would cause. It's another repo for > cores to watch. It would cause everyone extra complication

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 03:40:47PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote: > > On 12 Aug 2016 15:28, "Thierry Carrez" wrote: > > > > > > Duncan Thomas wrote: > > > > > I agree that leaving broken drivers

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][cinder] tag:follows-standard-deprecation should be removed

On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Erno Kuvaja wrote: > On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> As follow up on the mailing list discussion [0], gerrit activity > >> >> [1][2] and cinder 3rd party CI policy [3] I'd like to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 09:16:02PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Aug 0

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 7:21 PM, Matthew Treinish <mtrein...@kortar.org> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 09, 2016 at 05:28:52PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcgin...@gmx.com> > wrote: > > > > > . > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [stable] [all] Changing stable policy for drivers

On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > . > > > > Mike, you must have left the midcycle by the time this topic came > > up. On the issue of out-of-tree drivers, I specifically offered this > > proposal (a community managed mechanism for distributing driver >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] persistently single-vendor projects

On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Ok. I'll play devils advocate here and speak to the other side of this, > because you raised an interesting issue... > > Ceph is outside of the tent. It provides a (mostly) api compatible > implementation of the swift api

Re: [openstack-dev] [Kolla] [Fuel] [tc] Looks like Mirantis is getting Fuel CCP (docker/k8s) kicked off

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Sergey Lukjanov wrote: > Hi folks, > > First of all, let me say that it’s a marketing announcement and as all of > you know such announcements aren’t precise from a technical side. > Personally I’ve seen this paper first time on

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] No middle-man - when does/will Nova directly connect iSCSI volumes?

On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:19 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 09:09:44AM -0700, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > > > > volumes connected to QEMU instances eventually become directly connected? > > > > > Our long term goal is that 100% of all network

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] No middle-man - when does/will Nova directly connect iSCSI volumes?

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Preston L. Bannister wrote: > QEMU has the ability to directly connect to iSCSI volumes. Running the > iSCSI connections through the nova-compute host *seems* somewhat > inefficient. > ​I know tests I've run in the past virt-io actually

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] I'm going to expire open bug reports older than 18 months.

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote: > Cinder bugs list was far more manageable once this had been done. > > It is worth sharing the tool for this? I realise it's fairly trivial to > write one, but some standardisation on the comment format etc seems >

Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-operators][cinder] max_concurrent_builds in Cinder

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Ivan Kolodyazhny wrote: > Hi developers and operators, > I would like to get any feedback from you about my idea before I'll start > work on spec. > > In Nova, we've got max_concurrent_builds option [1] to set 'Maximum number > of instance builds

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder]The backend-group concept in Cinder

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:45 PM, chenying wrote: > Hi all: > I want to know whether the backend-group concept have been > discussed or have other recommendations to us? > The backend-group concept means can be regarded as a mechanism to > manage same

Re: [openstack-dev] disabling deprecated APIs by config?

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > nova-net is now deprecated - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/310539/ > > And we're in the process in Nova of doing some spring cleaning and > deprecating the proxies to other services - >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] [glance] Answers to some questions about Glance

's questions, hope > they are helpful. > > On 5/16/16, 9:06 PM, "John Griffith" <john.griffi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hey, > > Maybe not related, but maybe it is. After spending the past couple of > hours trying to help a customer with a Glance issue I'm a bit... well &

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] [glance] On operating a high throughput or otherwise team

ely? Do we have etiquette that people actually follow > making sure you stay on topic and move forward, or rather diverge and > create even more problems? > > > On 5/16/16 9:06 PM, John Griffith wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Flavio Percoco <

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] [all] [glance] On operating a high throughput or otherwise team

On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 10:10 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 16/05/16 00:23 -0700, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Nikhil Komawar's message of 2016-05-14 17:42:16 -0400: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> >>> Lately I have been involved in discussions that have resulted in giving

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Nominating Michał Dulko to Cinder Core

Definitely a +1 from me On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Patrick East wrote: > +1, Michal has done some awesome work on Cinder! > > -Patrick > > On Tue, May 3, 2016 at 11:16 AM, Sean McGinnis > wrote: > >> Hey everyone, >> >> I would like to

[openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Additional notes on Nova and Cinder volume managment

Hey Everyone, I've spent a bit more time thinking through some of what we talked about in todays session. I wanted to summarize some things, clarify a couple points and also add some details that I've been thinking about. Etherpad seemed like a more collaborative way to go than super long email

Re: [openstack-dev] [devstack] openstack client slowness / client-as-a-service

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 12:17 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > On 04/19/2016 10:16 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 09:57:56AM -0500, Dean Troyer wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:06 AM, Adam Young wrote: >>> >>> I wonder how

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [devstack] Adding example "local.conf" files for testing?

On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 1:31 AM, Markus Zoeller wrote: > Sometimes (especially when I try to reproduce bugs) I have the need > to set up a local environment with devstack. Everytime I have to look > at my notes to check which option in the "local.conf" have to be set > for

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Does the OpenStack community(or Cinder team) allow one driver to call another driver's public method?

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:05 PM, liuxinguo wrote: > Hi Cinder team, > > > > We are going to implement storage-assisted volume migrate in our driver > between different backend storage array or even different array of > different vendors. > > This is really high-efficiency

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal: changes to our current testing process

On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Knight, Clinton <clinton.kni...@netapp.com> wrote: > > > On 3/7/16, 10:45 AM, "Eric Harney" <ehar...@redhat.com> wrote: > > >On 03/06/2016 09:35 PM, John Griffith wrote: > >> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Proposal: changes to our current testing process

On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Jay S. Bryant wrote: > Ivan, > > I agree that our testing needs improvement. Thanks for starting this > thread. > > With regards to adding a hacking check for tests that run too long ... are > you thinking that we would have a

Re: [openstack-dev] [oslo] PTL for Newton and beyond

On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Ronald Bradford wrote: > Dims, > > As my first project and cycle in OpenStack I have really appreciated your > input and direction as I was starting out and during Mitaka cycle. > It has been great to learn just a bit of what PTL of Oslo

Re: [openstack-dev] Openstack Cinder - Wishlist

There's actually a Launchpad category for this very thing. Under the importance tag. On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 6:27 AM, wrote: > Thank you Yatin! > > > > *From:* yatin kumbhare [mailto:yatinkumbh...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 1, 2016 4:43 PM > *To:* OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][cinder] volumes stuck detaching attaching and force detach

On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud) wrote: > > > -Original Message- > > From: D'Angelo, Scott > > > > Matt, changing Nova to store the connector info at volume attach time > does > > help. Where the gap will remain is after Nova evacuation or live >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] [nova] Work flow for detaching a volume

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote: > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 06:11:15PM +, Srinivas Sakhamuri wrote: > > I want to confirm the correct work flow for detaching a volume, Both nova > > and cinder (unpublished, available through cinder.volumes.detach)

Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack-Infra][cinder] How to configure the third party CI to be triggered only when jenkins +1

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 6:32 PM, liuxinguo wrote: > Hi, > > > > There is no need to trigger third party CI if a patch does not pass > Jenkins Verify. > > I think there is a way to reach this but I’m not sure how. > > > > So is there any reference or suggestion to configure

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][all] Integration python-*client tests on gates

pens. If we don't currently test that code it > would be a good goal for any new integration testing to do so. > > > > > > > There is a proposal to python-cinderclient tests to implement some > > cross-project testing to make sure, that new python-cinderclient won't >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Multi-attach, determining when to call os-brick's connector.disconnect_volume

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Walter A. Boring IV wrote: > There seems to be a few discussions going on here wrt to detaches. One > is what to do on the Nova side with calling os-brick's disconnect_volume, > and also when to or not to call Cinder's

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] tenant vs. project

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 5:01 AM, Sean Dague wrote: > Ok... this is going to be one of those threads, but I wanted to try to > get resolution here. > > OpenStack is wildly inconsistent in it's use of tenant vs. project. As > someone that wasn't here at the beginning, I'm not even

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Multi-attach, determining when to call os-brick's connector.disconnect_volume

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Ildikó Váncsa wrote: > Hi Walt, > > > -Original Message- > > From: Walter A. Boring IV [mailto:walter.bor...@hpe.com] > > Sent: February 09, 2016 23:15 > > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Multi-attach, determining when to call os-brick's connector.disconnect_volume

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 5:12 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > But the issue is, when told to detach, some of the drivers do bad things. > then, is it the driver's issue to refcount to fix the issue, or is it > nova's to refcount so that it doesn't call the release before all users

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Cinder] Multi-attach, determining when to call os-brick's connector.disconnect_volume

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Sean McGinnis <sean.mcgin...@gmx.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 03:30:42PM -0700, John Griffith wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Ildikó Váncsa < > ildiko.van...@ericsson.com> > > wrote: > > > > > &

Re: [openstack-dev] [Cinder] Nominating Patrick East to Cinder Core

On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Jay Bryant wrote: > +1. Patrick's contributions to Cinder have been notable since he joined us > and he is a pleasure to work with! Welcome to the core team Patrick! > > Jay > > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 19:05 Sean McGinnis

Re: [openstack-dev] [Neutron] MTU configuration pain

On Sun, Jan 17, 2016 at 8:30 PM, Matt Kassawara wrote: > Prior attempts to solve the MTU problem in neutron simply band-aid it or > become too complex from feature creep or edge cases that mask the primary > goal of a simple implementation that works for most deployments.

Re: [openstack-dev] Should Cinder have a volume_action table to track changes on a Volume?

On Wed, Dec 30, 2015 at 7:54 AM, SCHVENINGER, DOUGLAS P wrote: > I was looking into a support issue and noticed that Nova has an instance > and instance_action table. I was wondering if this is something that cinder > would consider adding a volume_action table to track changes

Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder] Dependencies of snapshots on volumes

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 9:10 PM, Li, Xiaoyan wrote: > Hi all, > > Currently when deleting a volume, it checks whether there are snapshots > created from it. If yes deletion is prohibited. But it allows to extend > the volume, no check whether there are snapshots from it. >

  1   2   3   4   5   >