On 10/10/2018 7:46 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
2) in the old microversions change the blind allocation copy to gather
every resource from a nested source RPs too and try to allocate that
from the destination root RP. In nested allocation cases putting this
allocation to placement will fail and nova
On 10/9/2018 10:08 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
Question for you as well: if we remove (or change) the force flag in a
new microversion then how should the old microversions behave when
nested allocations would be required?
Fail fast if we can detect we have nested. We don't support forcing
On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 2:46 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 10/10/2018 06:32 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks for all the feedback. I feel the following consensus is
>> forming:
>>
>> 1) remove the force flag in a new microversion. I've proposed a spec
>> about that API change [1]
>
On 10/10/2018 06:32 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for all the feedback. I feel the following consensus is forming:
1) remove the force flag in a new microversion. I've proposed a spec
about that API change [1]
+1
2) in the old microversions change the blind allocation copy to gather
On 10/09/2018 05:01 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
On 10/09/2018 02:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 10/09/2018 11:04 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
If you do the force flag removal in a nw microversion that also means
(at least to me) that you should not change the behavior of the force
flag in the old
Le mer. 10 oct. 2018 à 12:32, Balázs Gibizer
a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for all the feedback. I feel the following consensus is forming:
>
> 1) remove the force flag in a new microversion. I've proposed a spec
> about that API change [1]
>
> Thanks, will look at it.
> 2) in the old
Hi,
Thanks for all the feedback. I feel the following consensus is forming:
1) remove the force flag in a new microversion. I've proposed a spec
about that API change [1]
2) in the old microversions change the blind allocation copy to gather
every resource from a nested source RPs too and try
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 11:01 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
>
>
> On 10/09/2018 02:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 11:04 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
>>> If you do the force flag removal in a nw microversion that also
>>> means
>>> (at least to me) that you should not change the behavior of
On 10/9/2018 1:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 10/09/2018 11:04 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
If you do the force flag removal in a nw microversion that also means
(at least to me) that you should not change the behavior of the force
flag in the old microversions.
Agreed.
Keep the old, buggy and
On 10/09/2018 02:20 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 10/09/2018 11:04 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
>> If you do the force flag removal in a nw microversion that also means
>> (at least to me) that you should not change the behavior of the force
>> flag in the old microversions.
>
> Agreed.
>
> Keep the
On 10/09/2018 11:04 AM, Balázs Gibizer wrote:
If you do the force flag removal in a nw microversion that also means
(at least to me) that you should not change the behavior of the force
flag in the old microversions.
Agreed.
Keep the old, buggy and unsafe behaviour for the old microversion
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 5:32 PM, Sylvain Bauza
wrote:
>
>
> Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 17:09, Balázs Gibizer
> a écrit :
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Sylvain Bauza
>>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 16:39, Eric Fried a
>> > écrit :
>> >> IIUC, the primary thing
> Shit, I forgot to add openstack-operators@...
> Operators, see my question for you here :
>
>
>> Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 16:39, Eric Fried a écrit :
>>
>>> IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
>>> instance to land on the requested destination even if that means
>>>
Shit, I forgot to add openstack-operators@...
Operators, see my question for you here :
> Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 16:39, Eric Fried a écrit :
>
>> IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
>> instance to land on the requested destination even if that means
>>
Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 17:09, Balázs Gibizer a
écrit :
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Sylvain Bauza
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 16:39, Eric Fried a
> > écrit :
> >> IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
> >> instance to land on the requested
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Sylvain Bauza
wrote:
>
>
> Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 16:39, Eric Fried a
> écrit :
>> IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
>> instance to land on the requested destination even if that means
>> oversubscription of the host's
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 4:39 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
> IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
> instance to land on the requested destination even if that means
> oversubscription of the host's resources - doesn't happen anymore
> since
> we started making the
Le mar. 9 oct. 2018 à 16:39, Eric Fried a écrit :
> IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
> instance to land on the requested destination even if that means
> oversubscription of the host's resources - doesn't happen anymore since
> we started making the
IIUC, the primary thing the force flag was intended to do - allow an
instance to land on the requested destination even if that means
oversubscription of the host's resources - doesn't happen anymore since
we started making the destination claim in placement.
IOW, since pike, you don't actually
Hi,
Setup
-
nested allocation: an allocation that contains resources from one or
more nested RPs. (if you have better term for this then please suggest).
If an instance has nested allocation it means that the compute, it
allocates from, has a nested RP tree. BUT if a compute has a nested
20 matches
Mail list logo
