After this discussion I'm thinking about not adding comprehensive handling
for provider removing case at all.
Probably we'll need to document desired workflow and postpone cleanup
feature until use cases are more clear.
I like the idea of leaving resource in ERROR state.
However, If we're not impl
More stuff from me.
Salvatore
On 31 July 2013 10:36, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> *> I don't think this is the right time to get into performance and scale
> discussions; on the implementation side, it would be good for me to
> understand how neutron will be able to undeploy resources - for which
*> I don't think this is the right time to get into performance and scale
discussions; on the implementation side, it would be good for me to
understand how neutron will be able to undeploy resources - for which it
should use a driver which unfortunately has been removed. Are we caching
drivers som
More comments on top of your comments!
And one more question: what are we going to do with 'orphaned' logical
instances? Can they be associated with another provider?
Salvatore
On 31 July 2013 09:23, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> My comments inline
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Salvatore
My comments inline
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Salvatore Orlando wrote:
>
>
> On 30 July 2013 23:24, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
>
>> 2) Resources allocated by the provider must be cleaned up - that is done
>> before neutron server is restarted with new configuration.
>> I think it's a valid w
Hi Eugene,
I have some comments on your considerations. I do apologise but perhaps I
did not understand correctly the workflow for removal of a service provider.
Salvatore
On 30 July 2013 23:24, Eugene Nikanorov wrote:
> Salvatore, thanks for your feedback.
>
> Let me comment on some of your s
Salvatore, thanks for your feedback.
Let me comment on some of your statements
*> The possibility Eugene describes in his post - a service provider being
deleted - is probably not a 'regular' use case, but more the consequence of
a potentially error-prone operation.*
Nachi initially raised a conce
It is my personal opinion that there is no necessary condition between
'having the possibility of leaving a resource without service provider' and
'API users want to create resources without service providers'.
While being able to change the 'provider' associated with a resource is a
reasonable use
Hi folks,
Recently we've been discussing with Nachi Ueno some specific use case of
deployments with multiple providers for particular advanced service.
What If admin wants to remove certain provider from configuration file?
The following handling was proposed:
1) Before restarting neutron-server
