> -Original Message-
> From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net]
> Sent: 29 December 2013 05:36
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] minimum review period for functional
> changes that break backwards compatib
On 12/29/2013 07:50 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 29 December 2013 04:21, Day, Phil wrote:
>> Hi Folks,
>>
>>
>>
>> I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the review
>> process, but I’d like to float the idea that there should be a minimum
>> review period for patches tha
On 29 December 2013 04:21, Day, Phil wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
>
>
> I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the review
> process, but I’d like to float the idea that there should be a minimum
> review period for patches that change existing functionality in a way that
> isn’t b
On 29 December 2013 05:15, John Griffith wrote:
> I think Sean made some good recommendations in the review (waiting 24
> hours as well as suggesting ML etc). It seems that cases like this
> don't necessarily need mandated time requirements for review but just
> need good core reviewers to say "h
Hi Client,
Current ironic call is for add/delete baremetl server, not with auto-scale. As
we discussed in another thread. What I'm thinking is related with auto-scale
baremetal server. In my mind, the logic can be 1. Nova scheduler determines
scale up one baremetal server. 2. Nova scheduler
Hi Clint,
Thanks for your reply. Please see inline.
Best RegardsLeslie
> From: cl...@fewbar.com
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2013 08:23:45 -0800
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Spam] [TripleO] UnderCloud & OverCloud
>
> Excerpts from LeslieWang's message of 2013-12
Excerpts from LeslieWang's message of 2013-12-24 03:01:51 -0800:
> Hi Oleg,
>
> Thanks for your promptly reply and detail explanation. Merry Christmas and
> wish you have a happy new year!
>
> At the same time, I think we can discuss more on Ironic is for backend driver
> for nova. I'm new in i
Tim,
First of all we should finish pure OpenStack profiling system. Soon I am
going to raise another thread about it.
This will allow us not only to detect that we have some issues in some
OpenStack API, but also help us to find the real reason.
Secondly we should cover all main functionality wit
Thanks.. can you advise where the accumulated experience from Rally will be
assembled ?
Rally gives me the method to test my cloud but we also need to have a set of
documentation on how to build clouds for scale so we don't all have to tune
(and end up with different approaches)
Tim
From: bo
Ali Gamal,
?
Tim,
Yes it fits.
There are couple of use cases that should be covered by Rally:
1) Easy way to find & fix bottlenecks/scale issues & improve performance of
OS (without having tons of servers)
2) Find the best Arch for your hardware and your typical loads
3) Ensure that existing
I think there also needs to be a scalability best practise and reference
architecture.
Benchmarking allows us to identify problems with the code but we also need some
community wisdom on how to deploy at scale.
Does this fit within Rally or can you advise where this community wisdom should
be
ali.bed...@gmail.com
On Oct 17, 2013 12:45 AM, "Boris Pavlovic" wrote:
> Hi Stackers,
>
>
> We are thrilled to present to you Rally, the benchmarking system for
> OpenStack.
>
>
> It is not a secret that we have performance & scaling issues and that
> OpenStack won’t scale out of box. It is also
On Oct 17, 2013 12:45 AM, "Boris Pavlovic" wrote:
> Hi Stackers,
>
>
> We are thrilled to present to you Rally, the benchmarking system for
> OpenStack.
>
>
> It is not a secret that we have performance & scaling issues and that
> OpenStack won’t scale out of box. It is also well known that if yo
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Hi Phil. Thanks for the well reasoned and poignant message urging
> caution and forethought in change management. I agree with all of the
> sentiments and think that we can do better in reasoning about the impact
> of changes. I think this just
Excerpts from LeslieWang's message of 2013-12-24 19:19:52 -0800:
> Dear All,
> Merry Christmas & Happy New Year!
> I'm new in TripleO. After some investigation, I have one question on
> UnderCloud & OverCloud. Per my understanding, UnderCloud will pre-install and
> set up all baremetal servers us
I think there is a need for an incompatible change review process which
includes more of the community than just those performing the code reviews.
This kind of change can cause a lot of disruption for those of us running
clouds so it is great to see that you are looking for more input.
In the
On 12/28/2013 05:51 AM, 刘胜 wrote:
Hi all：
I have reported a bug about time consuming of “resource-list” in
ceilometer CLI：
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1264434
In order to Identify the causes of this phenomenon, I have pdb the codes
in my invironment(configured mysql as db driver)
Hi Phil. Thanks for the well reasoned and poignant message urging
caution and forethought in change management. I agree with all of the
sentiments and think that we can do better in reasoning about the impact
of changes. I think this just puts further exposure on the fact that
Nova needs reviewers
Excerpts from Pengfei Zhang's message of 2013-12-25 21:47:29 -0800:
> Hi,
> I come across two question about the image provision and distribute in
> openstack(nova),
> 1.Afaik, in current version, nova-compute use the curl to download image from
> glance (or other places). Are there any alte
Hi Folks,
I know it may seem odd to be arguing for slowing down a part of the review
process, but I'd like to float the idea that there should be a minimum review
period for patches that change existing functionality in a way that isn't
backwards compatible.
The specific change that got me thi
On 12/27/2013 11:11 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
I'm really sorry about the horrid UI - we're in the middle of fixing
the plumbing to report this and support things like tempest better -
from the bottom up. The subunit listing -> testr reporting of listing
errors is fixed on the subunit side, but no
I think the better way is save meters as a field in resource table.
You can look at MongoDB model and may get some ideas.
Beside above, sql backend can introduce Memcache to improve performance.
IMO, the best way may be redesign the sql model to match workload.
On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:51 PM,
Hi all：
I have reported a bug about time consuming of “resource-list” in ceilometer CLI：
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+bug/1264434
In order to Identify the causes of this phenomenon, I have pdb the codes in my
invironment(configured mysql as db driver):
the most import part of process
I'm not sure how Climate would map to the non-predictable nature of the
workload. I had understood Climate as providing a booking system to reserve
resources in the future (which is a valuable use case but not quite the problem
Ulrich is describing of delegation of quota).
Looking at https://b
24 matches
Mail list logo
