On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On May 30, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Zhenguo Niu wrote:
>
> > as placement is not splitted out from nova now, and there would be users
> who only want a baremetal cloud, so we don't add resources to placement
>
On May 30, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Zhenguo Niu wrote:
> as placement is not splitted out from nova now, and there would be users who
> only want a baremetal cloud, so we don't add resources to placement yet, but
> it's easy for us to turn to placement to match the node type
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:
> On May 30, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Zhenguo Niu wrote:
>
> > There would be a collision if nova and mogan consume the same ironic
> nodes cluster, as both of them will see all the available node resources.
> So
On May 30, 2017, at 9:08 PM, Zhenguo Niu wrote:
> There would be a collision if nova and mogan consume the same ironic nodes
> cluster, as both of them will see all the available node resources. So if
> someone wants to choose mogan for baremetal compute management, the
Thanks Ruby for bringing this up!
There would be a collision if nova and mogan consume the same ironic nodes
cluster, as both of them will see all the available node resources. So if
someone wants to choose mogan for baremetal compute management, the
recommended deployment is Mogan+Ironic for
On 05/30/2017 05:07 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-05-30 14:52:01 -0400:
Sorry for the delay in getting back on this... comments inline.
On 05/18/2017 06:13 PM, Adrian Turjak wrote:
Hello fellow OpenStackers,
For the last while I've been looking at options
Dear Openstack Dev Kuryr Team,
I'm Zainal abidin from Jakarta Indonesia, we have questions regarding
connectivity from kubernetes to openstack. Our environment is vmware
vsphere 5.5, we established coreos + kubernetes as our microservices docker
deployment. We use coreos etcd v2.3.7 and k8s
Based on two other recent threads [1][2] and some discussions on
IRC, I have written up some guidelines [3] that try to address the
concerns I have with us publishing binary artifacts while still
allowing the kolla team and others to move ahead with the work they
are trying to do.
I would
Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2017-05-30 16:11:41 -0500:
> On 05/30/2017 04:08 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> > On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Matthew Thode
> > wrote:
> >> We have a problem in requirements that projects that don't have the
> >>
I've reported a bug here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1694543
--
Thanks,
Matt
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe:
On 05/30/2017 04:08 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Matthew Thode
> wrote:
>> We have a problem in requirements that projects that don't have the
>> cycle-with-intermediary release model (most of the cycle-with-milestones
>> model) don't get
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Matthew Thode
wrote:
> We have a problem in requirements that projects that don't have the
> cycle-with-intermediary release model (most of the cycle-with-milestones
> model) don't get integrated with requirements until the cycle is
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-05-30 14:52:01 -0400:
> Sorry for the delay in getting back on this... comments inline.
>
> On 05/18/2017 06:13 PM, Adrian Turjak wrote:
> > Hello fellow OpenStackers,
> >
> > For the last while I've been looking at options for multi-region
> >
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 4:58 PM, Attila Darazs wrote:
> If the topics below interest you and you want to contribute to the
> discussion, feel free to join the next meeting:
>
> Time: Thursdays, 14:30-15:30 UTC
> Place: https://bluejeans.com/4113567798/
>
> Full minutes:
On 05/30/2017 02:51 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2017-05-30 13:36:02 -0500:
>> We have a problem in requirements that projects that don't have the
>> cycle-with-intermediary release model (most of the cycle-with-milestones
>> model) don't get integrated with
Excerpts from Matthew Thode's message of 2017-05-30 13:36:02 -0500:
> We have a problem in requirements that projects that don't have the
> cycle-with-intermediary release model (most of the cycle-with-milestones
> model) don't get integrated with requirements until the cycle is fully
> done.
On 05/30/2017 02:36 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
[nova]
os-vif - blocking pbr - intermediary
Sorry for the delay. We'll fix this up today. We'll need to cut a new
release of os-traits too given a bug we ran into today...
Thanks for keeping us honest!
Best,
-jay
Sorry for the delay in getting back on this... comments inline.
On 05/18/2017 06:13 PM, Adrian Turjak wrote:
Hello fellow OpenStackers,
For the last while I've been looking at options for multi-region
multi-master Keystone, as well as multi-master for other services I've
been developing and
We have a problem in requirements that projects that don't have the
cycle-with-intermediary release model (most of the cycle-with-milestones
model) don't get integrated with requirements until the cycle is fully
done. This causes a few problems.
* These projects don't produce a consumable
Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2017-05-30 18:16:25 +0100:
>
> There's no TC meeting this week. Thierry did a second weekly status
> report[^1]. There will be a TC meeting next week (Tuesday, 6th June
> at 20:00 UTC) with the intention of discussing the proposals about
> postgreSQL (of
Hi,
We are glad to present this week's priorities and subteam report for Ironic. As
usual, this is pulled directly from the Ironic whiteboard[0] and formatted.
This Week's Priorities (as of the weekly ironic meeting)
1. booting from
There's no TC meeting this week. Thierry did a second weekly status
report[^1]. There will be a TC meeting next week (Tuesday, 6th June
at 20:00 UTC) with the intention of discussing the proposals about
postgreSQL (of which more below). Here are my comments on pending TC
activity that either
- Mail original -
> De: "Lance Bragstad"
> À: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Envoyé: Mardi 30 Mai 2017 16:33:17
> Objet: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla][osprofiler][keystone][neutron][nova]
>
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:43 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
>
>
> On 05/30/2017 08:00 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2017-05-29 15:43:43 +0200 (+0200), Emilien Macchi wrote:
On Wed, May
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:10 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-05-30 15:00:11 +0200 (+0200), Emilien Macchi wrote:
> [...]
>> I'll explore Launchpad to see how we can use this group to handle
>> Security bugs.
>
> I'll save you some time! ;)
Many thanks, indeed it helped.
>
I've introduced a patch [0] for updating the Murano meeting time. But the
meeting time proposed will have to be adjusted to account for vastly different
time zones: America and Asia for example.
Tentatively ~UTC 12:00 pm might be feasible, but more feedback is needed to
make a better update
The oslo.log changes to include exception details are in version
3.27.0.
Doug
Excerpts from ChangBo Guo's message of 2017-05-27 16:22:27 +0800:
> Thanks Doug, I will release it on next Monday.
>
> 2017-05-25 22:15 GMT+08:00 Doug Hellmann :
>
> > One outcome from the
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 5:47 AM, Spyros Trigazis wrote:
> FYI, there is already a cinder volume driver for docker available, written
> in golang, from rexray [1].
>
> Our team recently contributed to libstorage [3], it could support manila
> too. Rexray
> also supports the
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 4:08 AM, Matthieu Simonin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd like to have more insight on OSProfiler support in paste-deploy files
> as it seems not similar across projects.
> As a result, the way you can enable it on Kolla side differs. Here are
> some
On 30 May 2017 at 15:26, Hongbin Lu wrote:
> Please consider leveraging Fuxi instead.
>
Is there a missing functionality from rexray?
> Kuryr/Fuxi team is working very hard to deliver the docker network/storage
> plugins. I wish you will work with us to get them
Hi,
Please note that the L2 GW code is currently broken due to the commit
e6333593ae6005c4b0d73d9dfda5eb47f40dd8da
If someone has the cycles can they please take a look.
Thanks
gary
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
Thanks Sam , Will sure review it.
On Tue, 30 May 2017, 17:59 Sam P, wrote:
> Hi Vikash,
>
> Greg submit the spec [1] for intrusive instance monitoring.
> Your review will be highly appreciated..
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/469070/
> --- Regards,
> Sampath
>
On 05/30/2017 08:00 AM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
On 2017-05-29 15:43:43 +0200 (+0200), Emilien Macchi wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
[...]
Emilien, I think we should
Hi all,
Friendly reminder that there will be a Common Classification Framework meeting
in about half an hour at #openstack-meeting.
Today's agenda:
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/CommonClassificationFramework#Discussion_Topic_30_May_2017
The spec seems to have reached general
Please consider leveraging Fuxi instead. Kuryr/Fuxi team is working very hard
to deliver the docker network/storage plugins. I wish you will work with us to
get them integrated with Magnum-provisioned cluster. Currently, COE clusters
provisioned by Magnum is far away from enterprise-ready. I
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 5:05 AM, Dnyaneshwar Pawar
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am tying to deploy a software on openstack controller on the overcloud.
> One way to do this is by modifying ‘overcloud image’ so that all packages of
> our software are added to image and then
If your project uses neutron.api.v2.attributes please read on.
A bulk of neutron.api.v2.attributes has been rehomed into neutron-lib
[1][2] and we've begun consuming these changes in neutron and stadium
projects.
Today we are working to consume:
- The core resource/collection name constants [3]
On 2017-05-30 15:00:11 +0200 (+0200), Emilien Macchi wrote:
[...]
> I'll explore Launchpad to see how we can use this group to handle
> Security bugs.
I'll save you some time! ;)
Go to https://launchpad.net/tripleo/+sharing (repeat for any other
projects the TripleO team has on LP) and add a row
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> On 2017-05-29 15:43:43 +0200 (+0200), Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:45 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> [...]
>> > Emilien, I think we should create a tripleo-coresec group in
>> >
On 2017-05-30 12:04:54 + (+), Waines, Greg wrote:
> Thanks Jeremy ... the remote gerrit setting was my problem ... I
> had it set to Vitrage because I am also doing some work there.
>
> I switched it to masakari for this work and was able to submit my
> spec.
Was it set globally
Hi Vikash,
Greg submit the spec [1] for intrusive instance monitoring.
Your review will be highly appreciated..
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/469070/
--- Regards,
Sampath
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 4:49 PM, Vikash Kumar
wrote:
> Thanks Sam
>
>
> On
Hi Greg,
Great.. thank you. I will ask people to review this..
--- Regards,
Sampath
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:06 PM, Waines, Greg wrote:
> Hey Sam,
>
>
>
> Was able to submit the blueprint and spec.
>
>
>
> Blueprint:
>
Hey Sam,
Was able to submit the blueprint and spec.
Blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/masakari/+spec/intrusive-instance-monitoring
Spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/469070/
Greg.
From: Sam P
Reply-To: "openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org"
Thanks Jeremy ... the remote gerrit setting was my problem ... I had it set to
Vitrage because I am also doing some work there.
I switched it to masakari for this work and was able to submit my spec.
thanks again,
Greg.
From: Jeremy Stanley
Reply-To:
FYI, there is already a cinder volume driver for docker available, written
in golang, from rexray [1].
Our team recently contributed to libstorage [3], it could support manila
too. Rexray
also supports the popular cloud providers.
Magnum's docker swarm cluster driver, already leverages rexray
Hi Ran Xiao,
Please, take a look at this doc I found online:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1U7M78uNhBp8eZIu0YH04u6Vzj6t2NpvDY4peX8svsXY/edit#heading=h.xochfa5fqf06
You might want to contact those folks!
Cheers
On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Ran Xiao wrote:
>
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 3:59 PM Afek, Ifat (Nokia - IL/Kfar Sava) <
ifat.a...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi Yujun,
>
>
>
> You started an interesting discussion. I think that the distinction
> between an operational error and a programmer error is correct and we
> should always keep that in mind.
>
>
>
Hi Shinobu,
It's really helpful to get feedback from customers, please, can you give me
details about the failures you are having?. If so, sending me directly some
logs would be great.
Thanks,
Carlos.
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Shinobu Kinjo wrote:
>
> Here is feedback
Hi Yujun,
You started an interesting discussion. I think that the distinction between an
operational error and a programmer error is correct and we should always keep
that in mind.
I agree that having an overall design for error handling in Vitrage is a good
idea; but I disagree that until
Ok, thanks Tuan.
Renat Akhmerov
@Nokia
On 29 May 2017, 17:38 +0700, lương hữu tuấn , wrote:
> Hi Renat,
>
> Kong is going to move on with this patch and then i will continue with the
> main problem of trust token in Mistral.
>
> Br,
>
> Tuan/Nokia
>
> > On Mon, May 29,
50 matches
Mail list logo