On 7 January 2014 08:50, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> Pretty much what Vish said.
>
> In re: History. I think this was the right way, these scheduler files didn't
> just spring up from nowhere, maintaining the history is a good thing. Even
> when this becomes a separate service knowing where the
On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:52 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> Vish,
>
> and as I understand it the hope will be to do the no-db-scheduler blueprint.
> There was quite a bit of debate on whether to do the no-db-scheduler stuff
> before or after the forklift and I think the consensus was to do the forklif
Thanks to Vish, Don, and Russell for the answers. Much appreciated!
Best,
-jay
On Mon, 2014-01-06 at 11:30 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
> > Hello Stackers,
> >
> > I was hoping to get some answers on a few questions I had regarding the
> >
st (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, January 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Gantt] Looki
ck-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Monday, January 6, 2014 at 12:08 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Gantt] Looking for some answers...
Russell,
It should be pret
Russell,
It should be pretty easy to do this in gantt though. Right now I would
probably do it against the current scheduler and then we'll port it
over. I don't think we should do major work only in gantt until we're
ready to deprecate the current scheduler.
That make sense.
In couple of the
On 01/06/2014 02:52 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> Vish,
>
> and as I understand it the hope will be to do the no-db-scheduler blueprint.
> There was quite a bit of debate on whether to do the no-db-scheduler stuff
> before or after the forklift and I think the consensus was to do the
> forklift
> fi
On 01/06/2014 02:30 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>> Hello Stackers,
>>
>> I was hoping to get some answers on a few questions I had
>> regarding the Gantt project [1]. Specifically, here are my
>> queries:
>>
>> 1) Why was Nova forked to the
Vish,
and as I understand it the hope will be to do the no-db-scheduler blueprint.
There was quite a bit of debate on whether to do the no-db-scheduler stuff
before or after the forklift and I think the consensus was to do the
forklift
first.
Current Nova scheduler is so deeply bind to nova data
ack-dev] [Gantt] Looking for some answers...
On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hello Stackers,
>
> I was hoping to get some answers on a few questions I had regarding
> the Gantt project [1]. Specifically, here are my queries:
>
> 1) Why was Nova forked to the
On Jan 6, 2014, at 11:02 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hello Stackers,
>
> I was hoping to get some answers on a few questions I had regarding the
> Gantt project [1]. Specifically, here are my queries:
>
> 1) Why was Nova forked to the http://github.com/openstack/gantt
> repository? Forking Nova jus
Hello Stackers,
I was hoping to get some answers on a few questions I had regarding the
Gantt project [1]. Specifically, here are my queries:
1) Why was Nova forked to the http://github.com/openstack/gantt
repository? Forking Nova just to then remove a bunch of code that
doesn't relate to the sch
12 matches
Mail list logo
