:-)
Thanks,
German
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:57 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
Oh hello again!
You know the drill!
On Sat
) - so having that would be great.
I like the proposed status :-)
Thanks,
German
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:57 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object
Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:57 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
Oh hello again!
You know the drill!
On Sat, 2014-08-16 at 11:42
List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
Yes, I'm advocating keeping each listener in a separate haproxy configuration
(and separate running instance). This includes the example I mentioned: One
that listens on port 80 for HTTP requests
status :-)
Thanks,
German
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2014 8:57 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
Oh hello again!
You
)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
Yes, I'm advocating keeping each listener in a separate haproxy configuration
(and separate running instance). This includes the example I mentioned: One
that listens on port 80 for HTTP requests and redirects everything
that.
German
*From:* Stephen Balukoff [mailto:sbaluk...@bluebox.net]
*Sent:* Monday, August 18, 2014 2:43 PM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
German--
By 'VIP' do you mean something
Oh hello again!
You know the drill!
On Sat, 2014-08-16 at 11:42 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
Hi Brandon,
Responses in-line:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Brandon Logan
brandon.lo...@rackspace.com wrote:
Comments in-line
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 17:18
Hi Brandon,
Responses in-line:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Brandon Logan brandon.lo...@rackspace.com
wrote:
Comments in-line
On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 17:18 -0700, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
Hi folks,
I'm OK with going with no shareable child entities (Listeners, Pools,
Members,
to haproxy
instances...
German
-Original Message-
From: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:17 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
So I've been assuming that the Octavia
: Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:17 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
So I've been assuming that the Octavia object model would be an exact copy of
the neutron lbaas one with additional information for Octavia.
However, after
: Brandon Logan [mailto:brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2014 10:17 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB Structure
So I've been assuming that the Octavia object model would be an exact
copy of the neutron
@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [Octavia] Object Model and DB
Structure
So I've been assuming that the Octavia object model would be
an exact copy of the neutron lbaas one with additional
information for Octavia.
However, after
So I've been assuming that the Octavia object model would be an exact
copy of the neutron lbaas one with additional information for Octavia.
However, after thinking about it I'm not sure this is the right way to
go because the object model in neutron lbaas may change in the future,
and Octavia
14 matches
Mail list logo
