Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Sam- Under the current design, you can provide a specific endpoint (singular) via the `endpoint_override` conf option. Based on feedback on this thread, we will also be keeping support for `[glance]api_servers` for consumers who actually need to be able to specify multiple endpoints.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

On 29 April 2017 at 01:46, Mike Dorman wrote: > I don’t disagree with you that the client side choose-a-server-at-random is > not a great load balancer. (But isn’t this roughly the same thing that > oslo-messaging does when we give it a list of RMQ servers?) For us it’s

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

> On 1 May 2017, at 4:24 pm, Sean McGinnis wrote: > > On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:17:43AM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: >>> >> >> I thought it was just nova too, but it turns out cinder has the same exact >> option as nova: (I hit this in my devstack patch trying to

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Matt- Yeah, clearly other projects have the same issuethis blueprint is trying to solve in nova. I think the idea is that, once the infrastructure is in place and nova has demonstrated the concept, other projects can climbaboard. It's conceivable that the new get_service_url() method

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 10:17:43AM -0400, Matthew Treinish wrote: > > > > I thought it was just nova too, but it turns out cinder has the same exact > option as nova: (I hit this in my devstack patch trying to get glance deployed > as a wsgi app) > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

On Mon, May 01, 2017 at 05:00:17AM -0700, Flavio Percoco wrote: > On 28/04/17 11:19 -0500, Eric Fried wrote: > > If it's *just* glance we're making an exception for, I prefer #1 (don't > > deprecate/remove [glance]api_servers). It's way less code & > > infrastructure, and it discourages others

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

On 28/04/17 11:19 -0500, Eric Fried wrote: If it's *just* glance we're making an exception for, I prefer #1 (don't deprecate/remove [glance]api_servers). It's way less code & infrastructure, and it discourages others from jumping on the multiple-endpoints bandwagon. If we provide

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

See - this is what happens when I write an entirely too long email while on coffee number one. :) Yes - you are, obviously, entirely right. I had clearly blocked memory of those pieces out of my memory. I still blame the coffee. It's down to the round-robin impl. Thanks for keeping me

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

If it's *just* glance we're making an exception for, I prefer #1 (don't deprecate/remove [glance]api_servers). It's way less code & infrastructure, and it discourages others from jumping on the multiple-endpoints bandwagon. If we provide endpoint_override_list (handwave), people will think it's

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Well, endpoint_overrride itself is already a concept with keystoneauth and all of the various client libraries (and more generally is already a concept in consuming the API services) It's a singleton - so we'd need to add a concept of an endpoint_override_list (*handwave on name*) Oh - oops -

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Maybe we are talking about two different things here? I’m a bit confused. Our Glance config in nova.conf on HV’s looks like this: [glance] api_servers=http://glance1:9292,http://glance2:9292,http://glance3:9292,http://glance4:9292 glance_api_insecure=True glance_num_retries=4

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Ok. That would solve some of the problem for us, but we’d still be losing the redundancy. We could do some HAProxy tricks to route around downed services, but it wouldn’t handle the case when that one physical box is down. Is there some downside to allowing endpoint_override to remain a list?

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Thank you both for your feedback - that's really helpful. Let me say a few more words about what we're trying to accomplish here overall so that maybe we can figure out what the right way forward is. (it may be keeping the glance api servers setting, but let me at least make the case real

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

Blair, Mike- There will be an endpoint_override that will bypass the service catalog. It still only takes one URL, though. Thanks, Eric (efried) On 04/27/2017 11:50 PM, Blair Bethwaite wrote: > We at Nectar are in the same boat as Mike.

Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] [nova][glance] Who needs multiple api_servers?

We at Nectar are in the same boat as Mike. Our use-case is a little bit more about geo-distributed operations though - our Cells are in different States around the country, so the local glance-apis are particularly important for caching popular images close to the nova-computes. We consider these