When using the native Docker tooling, the Docker daemon controls the UUID of the container, not Magnum.
-- Kyle ________________________________________ From: Ryan Brown <rybr...@redhat.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 3:16 PM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Nesting /containers resource under /bays On 01/13/2016 04:42 AM, Jamie Hannaford wrote: > I've recently been gathering feedback about the Magnum API and one of > the things that people commented onβ was the global /containers > endpoints. One person highlighted the danger of UUID collisions: > > > """ > > It takes a container ID which is intended to be unique within that > individual cluster. Perhaps this doesn't matter, considering the surface > for hash collisions. You're running a 1% risk of collision on the > shorthand container IDs: > > > In [14]: n = lambda p,H: math.sqrt(2*H * math.log(1/(1-p))) > > In [15]: n(.01, 0x1000000000000) > Out[15]: 2378620.6298183016 > > > (this comes from the Birthday Attack - > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack) > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack> > > > The main reason I questioned this is that we're not in control of how > the hashes are created whereas each Docker node or Swarm cluster will > pick a new ID under collisions. We don't have that guarantee when > aggregating across. > > > The use case that was outlined appears to be aggregation and reporting. > That can be done in a different manner than programmatic access to > single containers.β > > """ > > > Representing a resource without reference to its parent resource also > goes against the convention of many other OpenStack APIs. > > > Nesting a container resource under its parent bay would mitigate both of > these issues: > > > /bays/{uuid}/containers/{uuid}β > > > I'd like to get feedback from folks in the Magnum team and see if > anybody has differing opinions about this. > > > Jamie I'm not a member of the Magnum community, but I am on the API working group, so my opinions come from a slightly different perspective. Nesting resources is not a "bad" thing, and as long as containers will always be in bays (from what I understand of the Magnum architecture, this is indeed true) then nesting them makes sense. Of course, it's a big change and will have to be communicated to users & client libraries, probably via a version bump. -- Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev