nt Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
Sounds ok, but there needs to be a careful upgrade/migration path, where both
are supported until after all pods are migrated out of nodes that are in the
res
Magnum will create
2 Heat stacks: the first Heat stack contains a resource group with flavor A,
the second Heat stack contains a resource group of flavor B.
Thoughts?
[1] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-June/097522.html
[2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/328822/
Best regards,
Hongbi
_
> From: Adrian Otto [adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:24 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing
> the bay n
drian Otto [adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:24 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
> managing the bay nodes
>
> I am really struggling to accept the idea
ngbin
> -Original Message-
> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.o...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: June-02-16 7:24 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
> managing the bay nodes
>
> I a
ack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
I am really struggling to accept the idea of heterogeneous clusters. My
experience causes me to question whether a heterogeneus cluster makes sense for
>> From: Kumari, Madhuri [mailto:madhuri.kum...@intel.com]
>> Sent: June-02-16 12:24 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
>> managing the bay nodes
>&
ution.
>
> Therefore, I vote to support the proposed idea.
>
> Best regards,
> Hongbin
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Hongbin Lu
>> Sent: June-01-16 11:44 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subjec
>
>Best regards,
>Hongbin
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Kumari, Madhuri [mailto:madhuri.kum...@intel.com]
>> Sent: June-02-16 12:24 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss
Kumari, Madhuri [mailto:madhuri.kum...@intel.com]
> > Sent: June-02-16 12:24 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
> > managing the bay nodes
> >
> > Hi Hongbin
ng List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
> managing the bay nodes
>
> Hi Hongbin,
>
> I also liked the idea of having heterogeneous set of nodes but IMO such
> features should not be implemented in Magnum, thus deviati
-Original Message-
From: Hongbin Lu [mailto:hongbin...@huawei.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 3:33 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
Personally, I think this is a
; From: Hongbin Lu
> Sent: June-01-16 11:44 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: RE: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
> managing the bay nodes
>
> Hi team,
>
> A blueprint was created for tracking this idea:
>
ns)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
> managing the bay nodes
>
> The discussion at the summit was very positive around this requirement
> but as this change will make a large impact to Magnum it will need a
> spec.
>
> On the API of thing
uestions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
I would vote for the OSC pattern to make it easier for the users, since we
already expect that migration path.
Also agree with Tom that this is a significant change so we should write a spec
to think
(not for usage questions)"
Date: 05/16/2016 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
managing the bay nodes
> On May 16, 2016, at 7:59 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> Devil's advoca
: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
The discussion at the summit was very positive around this requirement but as
this change will make a large impact to Magnum it will need a spec.
On the API of things, I was thinking a slightly more generic approach to
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the bay
nodes
Hi all,
This is a continued discussion from the design summit. For recap, Magnum
manages bay nodes by using ResourceGroup from Heat. This approach works but it
is
nt Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 01:07
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually
>> managing the bay nod
>
>From: Yuanying OTSUKA
>Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
>Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 01:07
>To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discus
hi Tom
I like your idea on define a generic approach of bay life cycle operations.
Seems current propose is to allow user dynamically adding/deleting nodes
from a created bay, what if the master/node flavor in baymodel(bay's
flavor) ? if a user add a new node with flavor which is not defined in
tions)"
Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 01:07
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
Hi,
I think, user also want to specify the deleting node.
So we should manage “node
On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 10:49:39PM +, Hongbin Lu wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is a continued discussion from the design summit. For recap, Magnum
> manages bay nodes by using ResourceGroup from Heat. This approach works but
> it is infeasible to manage the heterogeneity across bay nodes, which
Hi,
I think, user also want to specify the deleting node.
So we should manage “node” individually.
For example:
$ magnum node-create —bay …
$ magnum node-list —bay
$ magnum node-delete $NODE_UUID
Anyway, if magnum want to manage a lifecycle of container infrastructure.
This feature is necessary.
Hi all,
This is a continued discussion from the design summit. For recap, Magnum
manages bay nodes by using ResourceGroup from Heat. This approach works but it
is infeasible to manage the heterogeneity across bay nodes, which is a
frequently demanded feature. As an example, there is a request t
25 matches
Mail list logo
