Sandy Walsh wrote on 2013-07-19:
>
>
> On 07/19/2013 09:47 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
>>> Sent: 19 July 2013 12:04
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>>> S
On Fri, Jul 19 2013, Sean Dague wrote:
> I assume it would gracefully degrade to the existing static allocators if
> something went wrong. If not, well that would be very bad.
>
> Ceilometer is an integrated project in Havana. Utilization based scheduling
> would be a new feature. I'm not sure why
On 07/19/2013 12:30 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 07/19/2013 10:37 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services) wrote:
>> If we agree that "something like capabilities" should go through Nova,
>> what do you suggest should be done with the change that sparked this
>> debate: https://review.openstack.org/#/c
I think that current approach of Scheduler is not scalable and not flexible. if
we add key/value this will make our scheduler flexible but with tons of hacks
and less scalable. We will get a tons of problems even on small 1k nodes
cloud.
We found another approach (just remove DB) this will so
On 07/19/2013 10:37 AM, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services) wrote:
If we agree that "something like capabilities" should go through Nova, what do
you suggest should be done with the change that sparked this debate:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/35760/
I would be happy to use it or a modified v
Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
Sent: 19 July 2013 14:28
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Ceilometer vs. Nova internal metrics
collector for scheduling
On 07/19/2013 08:30 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On 07/19/13 at 12:08pm, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services)
On 07/19/2013 08:30 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 07/19/13 at 12:08pm, Murray, Paul (HP Cloud Services) wrote:
Hi Sean,
Do you think the existing static allocators should be migrated to
going through ceilometer - or do you see that as different? Ignoring
backward compatibility.
It makes sense to
On 07/19/2013 09:47 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
>> Sent: 19 July 2013 12:04
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Ceilometer vs. Nova internal metrics
&g
> -Original Message-
> From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
> Sent: 19 July 2013 12:04
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Ceilometer vs. Nova internal metrics
> collector for scheduling (was: New DB column or new DB table?)
On 07/19/13 at 07:04am, Sean Dague wrote:
On 07/19/2013 06:18 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
Ceilometer is a great project for taking metrics available in Nova and other
systems and making them available for use by Operations, Billing, Monitoring,
etc - and clearly we should try and avoid having multipl
[Nova] Ceilometer vs. Nova internal metrics
collector for scheduling (was: New DB column or new DB table?)
On 07/19/2013 06:18 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
Ceilometer is a great project for taking metrics available in Nova and other
systems and making them available for use by Operations, Billing, Monitoring,
done it. Which way do you think
that should be done?
Paul.
-Original Message-
From: Sean Dague [mailto:s...@dague.net]
Sent: 19 July 2013 12:04
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Ceilometer vs. Nova internal metrics
collector for scheduling (was
On 07/19/2013 06:18 AM, Day, Phil wrote:
Ceilometer is a great project for taking metrics available in Nova and other
systems and making them available for use by Operations, Billing, Monitoring,
etc - and clearly we should try and avoid having multiple collectors of the
same data.
But making
13 matches
Mail list logo
