Re: [openstack-dev] tenant or project

2013-11-23 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On November 23, 2013 4:09:49 AM Christopher Yeoh cbky...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, So in the past we've used both tenant and project to refer to the same thing and I think its been a source of confusion for people new to OpenStack. In the Nova code we use both, but at least for the API we've been

Re: [openstack-dev] tenant or project

2013-11-23 Thread Caitlin Bestler
I have seen several people request that their users be members of two projects and that they be allow to publish objects that are Shared by multiple projects. For some reason the people who request these complex data constructions always prefer to call the enclosing entity a project. I have

Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Does Nova really need an SQL database?

2013-11-19 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 11/18/2013 11:35 AM, Mike Spreitzer wrote: There were some concerns expressed at the summit about scheduler scalability in Nova, and a little recollection of Boris' proposal to keep the needed state in memory. I also heard one guy say that he thinks Nova does not really need a general SQL

Re: [openstack-dev] Improvement of Cinder API wrt https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1213953

2013-11-12 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 11/12/2013 8:09 AM, John Griffith wrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Solly Ross sr...@redhat.com wrote: I'd like to get some sort of consensus on this before I start working on it. Now that people are back from Summit, what would you propose? Best Regards, Solly Ross - Original

Re: [openstack-dev] Improvement of Cinder API wrt https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1213953

2013-11-04 Thread Caitlin Bestler
Replication of snapshots is one solution to this. You create a Cinder Volume once. snapshot it. Then replicate to the hosts that need it (this is the piece currently missing). Then you clone there. I will be giving an in an hour in conference session on this and other uses of snapshots in the

Re: [openstack-dev] Towards OpenStack Disaster Recovery

2013-10-21 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 10/21/2013 2:34 AM, Avishay Traeger wrote: Hi all, We (IBM and Red Hat) have begun discussions on enabling Disaster Recovery (DR) in OpenStack. We have created a wiki page with our initial thoughts: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/DisasterRecovery We encourage others to contribute to this

Re: [openstack-dev] [novaclient]should administrator can see all servers of all tenants by default?

2013-10-14 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 10/14/2013 8:37 AM, Ben Nemec wrote: I agree that this needs to be fixed. It's very counterintuitive, if nothing else (which is also my argument against requiring all-tenants for admin users in the first place). The only question for me is whether to fix it in novaclient or in Nova itself.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT Software orchestration proposal for workflows

2013-10-11 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 10/9/2013 12:55 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: Your example sounds a lot like what taskflow is build for doing. https://github.com/stackforge/taskflow/blob/master/taskflow/examples/calculate_in_parallel.py is a decent example. In that one, tasks are created and input/output dependencies are

Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] HOT Software orchestration proposal for workflows

2013-10-09 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 10/9/2013 12:55 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: Your example sounds a lot like what taskflow is build for doing. I'm not that familiar with Heat, so I wanted to bounce this off of you before doing a public foot-in-mouth on the mailing list. Is the real issue here the difference between

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] RFC: adding on_shared_storage field to instance

2013-10-04 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On Oct 3, 2013 1:45 PM, Chris Friesen chris.frie...@windriver.com wrote: On 10/03/2013 02:02 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: On October 3, 2013 12:44:50 PM Chris Friesen chris.frie...@windriver.com wrote: I was wondering if there is any interest in adding an on_shared_storage field

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] RFC: adding on_shared_storage field to instance

2013-10-04 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 10/4/2013 7:33 AM, Chris Friesen wrote: On 10/04/2013 04:11 AM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: On Oct 3, 2013 1:45 PM, Chris Friesen chris.frie...@windriver.com mailto:chris.frie...@windriver.com wrote: On 10/03/2013 02:02 PM, Caitlin Bestler wrote: On October 3, 2013 12:44:50 PM Chris

Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] RFC: adding on_shared_storage field to instance

2013-10-03 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On October 3, 2013 12:44:50 PM Chris Friesen chris.frie...@windriver.com wrote: I was wondering if there is any interest in adding an on_shared_storage field to the Instance class. This would be set once at instance creation time and we would then be able to avoid having the admin

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for Raksha, a Data Protection As a Service project

2013-08-30 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 8/29/2013 5:36 PM, Murali Balcha wrote: Hi Kat, Consider the following use cases that Raksha will addresses. I will discuss from simple to complex use case and then address your specific questions with inline comments. 1.VM1 that is created on the local file system with a cinder

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for Raksha, a Data Protection As a Service project

2013-08-30 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 8/30/2013 12:49 PM, Murali Balcha wrote: Hi Caitlin, Did you get a chance to look at the wiki? It describes the raksha functionality in detail. It includes more than volume backup. It includes vm images, all volumes and network configurations associated with vms and it supports

Re: [openstack-dev] Proposal for Raksha, a Data Protection As a Service project

2013-08-29 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 8/28/2013 3:12 PM, Murali Balcha wrote: Hello Stackers, We would like to introduce a new project Raksha, a Data Protection As a Service (DPaaS) for OpenStack Cloud. Raksha’s primary goal is to provide a comprehensive Data Protection for OpenStack by leveraging Nova, Swift, Glance and

Re: [openstack-dev] Extension to volume creation (filesystem and label)

2013-08-13 Thread Caitlin Bestler
On 8/12/2013 9:37 AM, Greg Poirier wrote: Oh, we don't want to get super fancy with it. We would probably only support one filesystem type and not partitions. E.g. You request a 120GB volume and you get a 120GB Ext4 FS mountable by label. I'm not following something here. What is the point