Steve,
I have two environments now, and although they have some other differences,
one of them is Juno.2 and I've also been unable to repro it there. That env
also lacks the same scale, load, and HA config so I was trying to figure
out whether it was Juno.2 or not, so thanks for the extra data
Hi all,
Recently I have read some contents about Sahara API v2 propose, but I am still
a bit confused why we are doing so at this stage. I read the bp
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/sahara/+spec/v2-api-impl and the involved
gerrit reviews (although already abandoned). However, I did not find
Hi Megh,
Thanks for contributing to Ceilometer. I've left some comment on your patch.
Also, ceilometer follows the official blueprint/spec process as described
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprints.
-Lianhao
-Original Message-
From: Megh Bhatt [mailto:me...@juniper.net]
Sent:
Hi all,
I'd like to propose a simple but straightforward method to improve the
stability of the current implementation.
Here's the current implementation:
receiver(PULL(tcp)) -- service(PUSH(tcp))
receiver(PUB(ipc)) -- service(SUB(ipc))
receiver(PUSH(ipc)) -- service(PULL(ipc))
Actually, as
On 03/27/2015 07:21 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 03/26/2015 06:46 PM, Robert Collins wrote:
On 27 March 2015 at 09:14, Ryan Brown rybr...@redhat.com
wrote:
Ooof, that's huge. If we can configure it to be less
aggressive I love the *idea* of having everything formatted
semantically, but that's
Hi All,
What is the importance of mentioning the algorithm type in the POST call ,
since we already have the secret.
Are we trying the encrypt the actual secret using the algorithm mentioned
in the POST call .If yes what is the key that is used to encrypt the secret
since we require the
Hi All,
Once the consumer resource registers to the containers , how does the
consumer resource consume the container resource?
Is there any API supporting the above operation.
Could any one please help on this?
--
*Thanks and Regards,*
*Asha Seshagiri*
Does the decision about the floating IP have to be based on the use of the
private IP in the original destination, or could you get by with rules on
the L3 agent to avoid NAT just based on the destination being in a
configured set of CIDRs?
If you could get by with the latter it would be a much
+1
/sv
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Anastasia Urlapova aurlap...@mirantis.com
wrote:
+ 10
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Igor Zinovik izino...@mirantis.com
wrote:
+1
On 26 March 2015 at 19:26, Fabrizio Soppelsa fsoppe...@mirantis.com
wrote:
+1 definitely
On 03/25/2015
Hi,
I have added a few comments to the review and have a fixed a few issues
that I have encountered along the way. I guess we can discuss on gerrit.
Thanks
Gary
On 3/27/15, 12:54 AM, Russell Bryant rbry...@redhat.com wrote:
Gary and Kyle, I saw in my IRC backlog that you guys were briefly
On 03/24/2015 09:21 PM, Assaf Muller wrote:
Note that https://review.openstack.org/#/c/166888/ has been merged.
This means that the option has been deprecated for K and will be
removed in L. Anyone using the non-default value of False will be looking
at errors in his logs.
Well, I have
On 28/03/15 09:05, Matt Fischer wrote:
Pavlo,
Here is a link to one of the stacks. It is fairly simple just some
routers/nets/subnets. The description is a bit odd perhaps, but legal.
I've changed the template to not point at IPs at internal DNS.
http://paste.ubuntu.com/10690759/
I've not
12 matches
Mail list logo
