Alan Kavanagh wrote:
I posted a query to Ironic which is related to this discussion. My thinking
was I want to ensure the case you note here (1) a tenant can not read
another tenants disk.. the next (2) was where in Ironic you provision a
baremetal server that has an onboard dish as
Clint Byrum wrote:
Is that really a path worth going down, given that tenant-A could just
drop evil firmware in any number of places, and thus all tenants afterward
are owned anyway?
I think a change of subject line is in order for this topic (assuming it hasn't
been discussed in sufficient
On 01/15/2014 11:25 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Alan Kavanagh's message of 2014-01-15 19:11:03 -0800:
Hi Paul
I posted a query to Ironic which is related to this discussion. My thinking was I want to
ensure the case you note here (1) a tenant can not read another tenants
disk..
for.
Kevin
From: CARVER, PAUL [pc2...@att.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 5:34 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance
blueprint of cinder
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2014-01-16 09:29:14 -0800:
Yeah, I think the evil firmware issue is separate and should be solved
separately.
Ideally, there should be a mode you can set the bare metal server into where
firmware updates are not allowed. This is useful to more folks
Excerpts from CARVER, PAUL's message of 2014-01-16 05:21:24 -0800:
Alan Kavanagh wrote:
I posted a query to Ironic which is related to this discussion. My thinking
was I want to ensure the case you note here (1) a tenant can not read
another tenants disk.. the next (2) was where in
On 01/16/2014 04:22 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2014-01-16 09:29:14 -0800:
Yeah, I think the evil firmware issue is separate and should be solved
separately.
Ideally, there should be a mode you can set the bare metal server into where
firmware updates are
-Original Message-
From: CARVER, PAUL [mailto:pc2...@att.com]
Sent: January-16-14 8:21 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance blueprint of
cinder.
Alan Kavanagh wrote:
I posted a query
, imho. Or do others see it differently, if so would
like to hear so.
/Alan
-Original Message-
From: CARVER, PAUL [mailto:pc2...@att.com]
Sent: January-16-14 8:34 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o
to be
made available for provisioning, at least that is my thinking here and the
concerns Paul had too. Do I sense a Blueprint!!!
Alan
-Original Message-
From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com]
Sent: January-16-14 12:25 AM
To: openstack-dev
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk
Excerpts from Alan Kavanagh's message of 2014-01-16 20:28:05 -0800:
+1makes sense to me. I will write up a Blueprint for this for review in
Ironic and we take it from their.
I don't see this as evil firmware, more a good process we need to automate as
part of sanity checks before
On 12/26/2013 01:56 AM, cosmos cosmos wrote:
Hello.
My name is Rucia for Samsung SDS.
I had in truouble in volume deleting.
I am developing for supporting big data storage such as hadoop in lvm.
it use as a full disk io for deleting of cinder lvm volume because of dd
the high disk I/O
Chris Friesen [mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com] wrote:
I read a proposal about using thinly-provisioned logical volumes as a
way around the cost of wiping the disks, since they zero-fill on demand
rather than incur the cost at deletion time.
I think it make a difference where the
(not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance blueprint of
cinder.
Chris Friesen [mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com] wrote:
I read a proposal about using thinly-provisioned logical volumes as a
way around the cost of wiping the disks, since they zero-fill
On 01/15/2014 06:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
What about a configuration option on the volume for delete type? I can see some
possible options:
* None - Don't clear on delete. Its junk data for testing and I don't want to
wait.
* Zero - Return zero's from subsequent reads either by zeroing on
From: Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 01/15/2014 06:06 PM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance
blueprint of cinder.
What
On 01/15/2014 06:30 PM, Jay S Bryant wrote:
There is already an option that can be set in cinder.conf using
'volume_clear=none'
Is there a reason that that option is not sufficient?
That option would be for the cloud operator and since it would apply to
all volumes on that cinder node.
My
@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance blueprint of
cinder.
On 01/15/2014 06:00 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
What about a configuration option on the volume for delete type? I can see
some possible options:
* None - Don't clear on delete. Its junk data for testing
, January 15, 2014 2:59 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance blueprint of
cinder.
Chris Friesen [mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com] wrote:
I read a proposal about using thinly-provisioned logical volumes
On 12/26/2013 07:56 AM, cosmos cosmos wrote:
Hello.
My name is Rucia for Samsung SDS.
I had in truouble in volume deleting.
I am developing for supporting big data storage such as hadoop in lvm.
it use as a full disk io for deleting of cinder lvm volume because of dd the
high
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance blueprint of
cinder.
That option is too corse. For some vm's, for testing for example, I really dont
need it clearing the data, and for some of my tests, I was creating 6 vm's
Message-
From: CARVER, PAUL [mailto:pc2...@att.com]
Sent: January-15-14 6:00 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for dd disk i/o performance blueprint of
cinder.
Chris Friesen [mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com] wrote:
I
Excerpts from Alan Kavanagh's message of 2014-01-15 19:11:03 -0800:
Hi Paul
I posted a query to Ironic which is related to this discussion. My thinking
was I want to ensure the case you note here (1) a tenant can not read
another tenants disk.. the next (2) was where in Ironic you
23 matches
Mail list logo
