On 08/14/15 at 01:06pm, stuart.mcla...@hp.com wrote:
I got zero responses on the mailing list raising a problem with Glance v2 [1].
I got zero responses on cross project meeting raising a problem with Glance v2
[2].
I'm very happy with my choice of words, because I think this hand slap on
Glanc
On 14/08/15 13:06 +0100, stuart.mcla...@hp.com wrote:
I got zero responses on the mailing list raising a problem with Glance v2 [1].
I got zero responses on cross project meeting raising a problem with Glance v2
[2].
I'm very happy with my choice of words, because I think this hand slap on
Glan
I got zero responses on the mailing list raising a problem with Glance v2 [1].
I got zero responses on cross project meeting raising a problem with Glance v2
[2].
I'm very happy with my choice of words, because I think this hand slap on
Glance is the first time I got acknowledgement in my frustr
On 8/13/15, 11:32 AM, "Mike Perez" wrote:
>* Role based properties [5] (who is asking for this, and why is Glance
> enforcing roles?)
I can answer this one.
Property protections have been available in Glance since Havana [6].
The feature was requested by deployers.
In general, Glance enforces ro
On 13/08/15 08:32 -0700, Mike Perez wrote:
On 14:48 Aug 13, Flavio Percoco wrote:
This is one of the reasons why it was asked for this email to be sent
rather than making decisions based on assumptions (you're free to read
- or not - the meeting logs).
Saying "Glance is just pissing off the co
On 14:48 Aug 13, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
> This is one of the reasons why it was asked for this email to be sent
> rather than making decisions based on assumptions (you're free to read
> - or not - the meeting logs).
>
> Saying "Glance is just pissing off the community" helps spreading a
> rumor
On 11:11 Aug 13, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
>
> That looks interesting, in a very good way.
>
> From the commit message of that review you referred:
> """
> These image-volumes are host specific, so each backend may end up with
> its very own image-volume to do clones from.
> """
> Does that mean that e
On 13/08/15 11:11 +, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:45 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cinder] [Glance] glance_store and
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 4:45 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cinder] [Glance] glance_store and
> glance
>
>
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 2:23 AM, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: 11 August 2015 19:04
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova]
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Perez [mailto:thin...@gmail.com]
> Sent: 11 August 2015 19:04
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cinder] [Glance] glance_store and
> glance
>
> On 15:06 Au
On 15:06 Aug 11, Kuvaja, Erno wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> > Having the image cache local to the compute nodes themselves gives the
> > best performance overall, and with glance_store, means that glance-api isn't
> > needed at all, and G
On 13:42 Aug 11, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> On 8/7/15, 1:07 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>
> >So, here's the crux of the issue. Nova and Cinder **do not want to speak
> >the Glance REST API** to either upload or download image bits from
> >storage. Streaming image bits through the Glance API endpoint is a
> -Original Message-
> From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 3:10 PM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Cinder] [Glance] glance_store and
> glance
>
> On 08/11/2015 09:42 AM, Brian
On 08/11/2015 09:42 AM, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
On 8/7/15, 1:07 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
So, here's the crux of the issue. Nova and Cinder **do not want to speak
the Glance REST API** to either upload or download image bits from
storage. Streaming image bits through the Glance API endpoint is a
ne
On 08/11/15 at 01:42pm, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
On 8/7/15, 1:07 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
So, here's the crux of the issue. Nova and Cinder **do not want to speak
the Glance REST API** to either upload or download image bits from
storage. Streaming image bits through the Glance API endpoint is a
ne
On 8/7/15, 1:07 PM, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>So, here's the crux of the issue. Nova and Cinder **do not want to speak
>the Glance REST API** to either upload or download image bits from
>storage. Streaming image bits through the Glance API endpoint is a
>needless and inefficient step, and Nova and Cin
On 09/08/15 18:41 -0700, Mike Perez wrote:
On 13:07 Aug 07, Jay Pipes wrote:
Hi Nik, some comments inline, but tl;dr I am strongly against
returning the glance_store library to the Glance source repository.
Explanations inline...
On 08/07/2015 01:21 AM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
>Hi,
>
>During the
On 13:07 Aug 07, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Hi Nik, some comments inline, but tl;dr I am strongly against
> returning the glance_store library to the Glance source repository.
> Explanations inline...
>
> On 08/07/2015 01:21 AM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >During the mid-cycle we had another propo
Hi Nik, some comments inline, but tl;dr I am strongly against returning
the glance_store library to the Glance source repository. Explanations
inline...
On 08/07/2015 01:21 AM, Nikhil Komawar wrote:
Hi,
During the mid-cycle we had another proposal that wanted to put back the
glance_store libr
20 matches
Mail list logo
