Sean Dague wrote:
On 08/14/2016 06:23 PM, Patrick East wrote:
We were talking through some of the implications of this change in
#openstack-nova, and the following further concerns came out.
1) Unix permissions for services in distros
Both Ubuntu and RHEL have a dedicated service user per ser
On 08/14/2016 06:23 PM, Patrick East wrote:
> I like the sound of a more unified way to interact with compute node
> services. Having a standardized approach for inter-service
> synchronization for controlling system resources would be sweet (even if
> it is just a more sane way of using local fil
On 08/14/2016 06:23 PM, Patrick East wrote:
> I like the sound of a more unified way to interact with compute node
> services. Having a standardized approach for inter-service
> synchronization for controlling system resources would be sweet (even if
> it is just a more sane way of using local fil
In-case folks are not following comments on all the various forums for this
discussion. We've got changes up to address the concerns raised so far on
the immediate problem:
Devstack (changing default config option to be shared):
https://review.openstack.org/341744
Cinder (release note): https://r
On Sat, Aug 13, 2016 at 08:04:13PM -0700, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> Sean McGinnis wrote:
> >On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >>A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick -
> >>https://review.openstack.org/341744
> >>
> >>Apparently there are some os-bri
Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-08-13 20:04:13 -0700:
The larger issue here IMHO is that there is now a API
around locking that might be better suited targeting an actual lock
management system (say redis or zookeeper or etcd or ...).
The more I look at this,
Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-08-13 20:04:13 -0700:
> The larger issue here IMHO is that there is now a API
> around locking that might be better suited targeting an actual lock
> management system (say redis or zookeeper or etcd or ...).
The more I look at this, the more I thin
Sean McGinnis wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick -
https://review.openstack.org/341744
Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the
nova and cinder lock paths are set to be
On 8/12/2016 8:52 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 8/12/2016 8:24 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick -
https://review.openstack.org/341744
Apparently there are some os-brick operations
On 8/12/2016 8:24 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick -
https://review.openstack.org/341744
Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the
nova and cinder loc
On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 05:55:47AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick -
> https://review.openstack.org/341744
>
> Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the
> nova and cinder lock paths are set to be the same thing
A devstack patch was pushed earlier this cycle around os-brick -
https://review.openstack.org/341744
Apparently there are some os-brick operations that are only safe if the
nova and cinder lock paths are set to be the same thing. Though that
hasn't yet hit release notes or other documentation yet
12 matches
Mail list logo
