On 6/22/2015 4:55 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:14:00AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/20/2015 3:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Waking up from a rare nap opportunity on a Saturday, this is what
On 6/26/2015 2:17 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/22/2015 4:55 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:14:00AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/20/2015 3:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Waking up from a
On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 18:10 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:10:40AM -0500, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Sat, 2015-06-20 at 21:35 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
In general I would say that is an unsupported deployment scenario to
have other random virt guests
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:10:40AM -0500, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Sat, 2015-06-20 at 21:35 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
In general I would say that is an unsupported deployment scenario to
have other random virt guests running on a nova compute node.
On the other hand, this is
On Sat, 2015-06-20 at 21:35 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
In general I would say that is an unsupported deployment scenario to
have other random virt guests running on a nova compute node.
On the other hand, this is exactly how compute nodes themselves are
often deployed—a random guest on
On 06/22/15 20:10, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 11:10:40AM -0500, Kevin L. Mitchell wrote:
On Sat, 2015-06-20 at 21:35 +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
In general I would say that is an unsupported deployment scenario to
have other random virt guests running on a nova
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:14:00AM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/20/2015 3:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Waking up from a rare nap opportunity on a Saturday, this is what was
bothering me:
The proposal in the
On 6/20/2015 3:35 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Waking up from a rare nap opportunity on a Saturday, this is what was
bothering me:
The proposal in the etherpad assumes that we are just getting bulk
host/domain/guest VM stats
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 01:50:53PM -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Waking up from a rare nap opportunity on a Saturday, this is what was
bothering me:
The proposal in the etherpad assumes that we are just getting bulk
host/domain/guest VM stats from the hypervisor and sending those in a
On 6/17/2015 10:52 AM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Without getting into the details from the etherpad [1], a few of us in
IRC today were talking about how the ceilometer compute-agent polls
libvirt directly for guest VM statistics and how ceilometer should
really be getting this information from
not familiar/smart enough to comment on design within Nova but i'm very
much in favour if this is possible. the polling option in Ceilometer was
always a means to get information not readily available via notifications.
that said, i don't think we can completely do away with polling. i'm
Without getting into the details from the etherpad [1], a few of us in
IRC today were talking about how the ceilometer compute-agent polls
libvirt directly for guest VM statistics and how ceilometer should
really be getting this information from nova via notifications sent from
a periodic task
I was involved in the IRC discussion, but to reiterate here this would
be a wonderful thing to get done. The current polling can be terribly
inefficient, and the ceilo team is already looking into other ways to
reduce the impact of it. I'm looking forward to helping with this.
Cheers,
Jason
On
13 matches
Mail list logo
