On 02/18/2015 01:19 AM, Joe Cropper wrote:
Along these lines—dare I bring up the topic of providing an enhanced
mechanism to determine which filter(s) contributed to NoValidHost
exceptions? Do others ever hear about operators getting this, and then
having no idea why a VM deploy failed? This
+1 to using a filter property to indicate whether the filter needs to be run on
force_hosts. As others have said, there are certain cases that need to be
checked even if the admin is trying to intentionally place a VM somewhere such
that we can fail early vs. letting the hypervisor blow up on
Good idea, it really makes sense. Just like the option
'run_filter_once_per_request' does.
2015-02-16 15:17 GMT+08:00 Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com:
On 02/14/2015 08:25 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
2015-02-14 1:41 GMT+08:00 Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com
mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com:
On
On 02/17/2015 04:59 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 02/16/2015 01:17 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
On 02/14/2015 08:25 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Agree with Nikola, the claim already checking that. And instance booting
must be failed if there isn't pci device. But I still think it should go
through the
On 02/16/2015 01:17 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
On 02/14/2015 08:25 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
Agree with Nikola, the claim already checking that. And instance booting
must be failed if there isn't pci device. But I still think it should go
through the filters, because in the future we may move the
If this feature is going to be added, I suggest it gets a different name. Force
host is an admin command to force an instance onto a host. If you want to make
a user-facing command that respects filters, perhaps something like
requested-host might work. In general, however, the name of hosts
On 02/14/2015 08:25 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
2015-02-14 1:41 GMT+08:00 Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com
mailto:ndipa...@redhat.com:
On 02/12/2015 04:10 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 02/12/2015 03:44 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Any action done by the operator is always more
On 02/12/2015 04:10 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 02/12/2015 03:44 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Any action done by the operator is always more important than what the
Scheduler
could decide. So, in an emergency situation, the operator wants to
force a
migration to an host, we need to accept it
2015-02-14 1:41 GMT+08:00 Nikola Đipanov ndipa...@redhat.com:
On 02/12/2015 04:10 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 02/12/2015 03:44 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Any action done by the operator is always more important than what the
Scheduler
could decide. So, in an emergency situation, the
List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 11:05 AM
To: OpenStack List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova] Question about force_host skip filters
Hi
filters should be applied to the list of hosts that are in ‘force_hosts’.
Yes, @Gray, it's my point.
Operator can live-migrate a instance to a specified host and skip filters,
it's apposite and important, I agree with you.
But when we boot instance, we always want to launch a instance
Le 12/02/2015 10:05, Rui Chen a écrit :
Hi:
If we boot instance with 'force_hosts', the force host will skip
all filters, looks like that it's intentional logic, but I don't know
the reason.
I'm not sure that the skipping logic is apposite, I think we should
remove the skipping
Append blueprint link:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/verifiable-force-hosts
2015-02-13 10:48 GMT+08:00 Rui Chen chenrui.m...@gmail.com:
I agree with you @Chris
'--force' flag is a good idea, it keep backward compatibility and
flexibility.
We can select whether the filters was
I agree with you @Chris
'--force' flag is a good idea, it keep backward compatibility and
flexibility.
We can select whether the filters was applied for force_hosts.
I will register blueprint to trace the feature.
The 'force_hosts' feature is so age-old that I don't know how many users
had used
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 1:51 PM
To: OpenStack List
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.orgmailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Question about force_host skip filters
filters should
On 02/12/2015 10:10 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 02/12/2015 03:44 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Any action done by the operator is always more important than what the
Scheduler
could decide. So, in an emergency situation, the operator wants to
force a
migration to an host, we need to accept it and
On 02/12/2015 03:44 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Any action done by the operator is always more important than what the Scheduler
could decide. So, in an emergency situation, the operator wants to force a
migration to an host, we need to accept it and do it, even if it doesn't match
what the
Hi:
If we boot instance with 'force_hosts', the force host will skip all
filters, looks like that it's intentional logic, but I don't know the
reason.
I'm not sure that the skipping logic is apposite, I think we should
remove the skipping logic, and the 'force_hosts' should work with the
18 matches
Mail list logo
