On 01/13/2014 05:43 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
On 2014/10/01 21:17, Jay Dobies wrote:
Another question:
- A Role (sounds like we're moving away from that so I'll call it
Resource Category) can have multiple Node Profiles defined (assuming I'm
interpretting the + and the tabs in the Create a Role wireframe
correctly). But I don't see anywhere where a profile is selected when
scaling the Resource Category. Is the idea behind the profiles that you
can select how much power you want to provide in addition to how many
nodes?
Yes, that is correct, Jay. I mentioned that in walkthrough and in
wireframes with the note "More views needed (for deploying, scaling,
managing roles)".
I would say there might be two approaches - one is to specify which node
profile you want to scale in order to select how much power you want to
add.
The other approach is just to scale the number of nodes in a role and
let system decide the best match (which node profile is chosen will be
decided on the best fit, probably).
I lean towards the first approach, where you specify what role and which
node profile you want to use for scaling. However this is just
introduction of the idea and I believe we can get answers until we get
to that step.
Any preferences for one of above mentioned approaches?
I lean towards the former as well. See the Domain Model Locations thread
and Jay Pipes' response for an admin's use case that backs it up.
A few weeks ago, there was the giant thread that turned into manual v.
automatic allocation[1]. The conversation used as an example a system
that was heavily geared towards disk IO being specifically used for the
storage-related roles.
Where I'm going with this is that I'm not sure it'll be enough to simply
use some values for a node profile. I think we're going to need some way
of identifying nodes as having a particular set of characteristics
(totally running out of words here) and then saying that the new
allocation should come from that type of node.
That's a long way of saying that I think an explicit step to say more
about what we're adding is not only necessary, but potentially
invalidates some of the wireframes as they exist today. I think over
time, that is going to be much more complex than incrementing some numbers.
Don't get me wrong. I fully appreciate that we're still very early on
and scoped to Icehouse for now. Need to start somewhere :)
[1]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/022163.html
-- Jarda
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
