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
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] Discuss the idea of manually managing the
bay nodes
Hi,
I thin
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
resourcegroup.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Hongbin Lu
Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2016 3:49:39 PM
To: OpenStack Developme
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.
24 matches
Mail list logo
