Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

gt;> >>> *From:* Matthew Booth [mailto:mbo...@redhat.com] >>> *Sent:* Saturday, March 3, 2018 4:15 PM >>> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < >>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> *Subject:* Re: [

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

2018-03-19 0:34 GMT+08:00 Nadathur, Sundar : > Sorry for the delayed response. I broadly agree with previous replies. > For the concerns about the impact of Cyborg weigher on scheduling > performance , there are some options (apart from filtering candidates as > much as

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

Hi Sundar, I think the two points you raised is valid and please also reflect that in the spec you are helping drafting :) On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 12:34 AM, Nadathur, Sundar < sundar.nadat...@intel.com> wrote: > Sorry for the delayed response. I broadly agree with previous replies. > For the

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

Sorry for the delayed response. I broadly agree with previous replies. For the concerns about the impact of Cyborg weigher on scheduling performance , there are some options (apart from filtering candidates as much as possible in Placement): * Handle hosts in bulk by extending BaseWeigher

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

@jay I'm also against a weigher in nova/placement. This should be an optional step depends on vendor implementation, not a default one. @Alex I think we should explore the idea of preferred trait. @Mathew: Like Sean said, Cyborg wants to support both reprogrammable FPGA and pre-programed ones.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

On 03/06/2018 09:36 PM, Alex Xu wrote: 2018-03-07 10:21 GMT+08:00 Alex Xu >: 2018-03-06 22:45 GMT+08:00 Mooney, Sean K >: __ __ __ __ *From:*Matthew Booth

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

M >> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) < >> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple >> functions >> >> >> >> On 2 March 2018 at 14:31,

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

ts.openstack.org> > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions > > > > On 2 March 2018 at 14:31, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 03/02/2018 02:00 PM, Nadathur, Sundar wrote: > > Hello Nova team, > > During

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

From: Matthew Booth [mailto:mbo...@redhat.com] Sent: Saturday, March 3, 2018 4:15 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions On 2 March 2018 at 14:31, Jay

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

On 2 March 2018 at 14:31, Jay Pipes wrote: > On 03/02/2018 02:00 PM, Nadathur, Sundar wrote: > >> Hello Nova team, >> >> During the Cyborg discussion at Rocky PTG, we proposed a flow for >> FPGAs wherein the request spec asks for a device type as a resource class, >> and

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

On 03/02/2018 02:00 PM, Nadathur, Sundar wrote: Hello Nova team,     During the Cyborg discussion at Rocky PTG, we proposed a flow for FPGAs wherein the request spec asks for a device type as a resource class, and optionally a function (such as encryption) in the extra specs. This does not

[openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cyborg] Tracking multiple functions

Hello Nova team, During the Cyborg discussion at Rocky PTG, we proposed a flow for FPGAs wherein the request spec asks for a device type as a resource class, and optionally a function (such as encryption) in the extra specs. This does not seem to work well for the usage model that I'll