Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 9/28/2016 12:10 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
ACTION: we should make sure workarounds are advertised better
ACTION: we should have some document about "when cells"?
This is a difficult question to answer because "it depends." It's akin
to asking "how many
On 9/28/2016 12:10 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
ACTION: we should make sure workarounds are advertised better
ACTION: we should have some document about "when cells"?
This is a difficult question to answer because "it depends." It's akin
to asking "how many nova-api/nova-conductor processes should
ACTION: we should make sure workarounds are advertised better
ACTION: we should have some document about "when cells"?
This is a difficult question to answer because "it depends." It's akin
to asking "how many nova-api/nova-conductor processes should I run?"
Well, what hardware is being used,
On 9/20/2016 11:16 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
NB the bug was non-deterministic and rare, even in the gate, so the
real test is whether it gets past the gate 20 times in a row :-)
Regards,
Daniel
It was about a 25% job failure rate in the gate when we disabled live
snapshots with the
On 9/20/2016 9:22 AM, Dan Smith wrote:
I'll also see about writing up some docs about the expected workflow
here. Presumably that needs to go in some fancy docs and not into the
devref, right? Can anyone point me to where that should go?
--Dan
I'd think something in here:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:36:29AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 11:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01:23AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> On 09/20/2016 10:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:20:15AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 04:20:49PM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01:23AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
> > Here is my reconstruction of the snapshot issue from what I can remember
> > of the conversation.
> >
> > Nova defaults to live snapshots. This uses the
On 09/20/2016 11:20 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01:23AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> On 09/20/2016 10:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:20:15AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
This is a bit delayed due to the release rush, finally getting
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 11:01:23AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 10:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:20:15AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> >> This is a bit delayed due to the release rush, finally getting back to
> >> writing up my experiences at the Ops
On 20 Sep 2016, at 16:38, Sean Dague >
wrote:
...
There were also general questions about what scale cells should be
considered at.
ACTION: we should make sure workarounds are advertised better
ACTION: we should have some document about "when cells"?
This
On 09/20/2016 10:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:20:15AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
>> This is a bit delayed due to the release rush, finally getting back to
>> writing up my experiences at the Ops Meetup.
>>
>> Nova Feedback Session
>> =
>>
>> We
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 09:20:15AM -0400, Sean Dague wrote:
> This is a bit delayed due to the release rush, finally getting back to
> writing up my experiences at the Ops Meetup.
>
> Nova Feedback Session
> =
>
> We had a double session for Feedback for Nova from Operators,
On 09/20/2016 10:22 AM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> Excellent writeup, thanks. Some comments inline.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 09:20 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>
>>
>> Performance Bottlenecks
>> ---
>>
>> * scheduling issues with Ironic - (this is a bug we got through during
>>
Excellent writeup, thanks. Some comments inline.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, at 09:20 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>
> Performance Bottlenecks
> ---
>
> * scheduling issues with Ironic - (this is a bug we got through during
> the week after the session)
> * live snapshots actually
> The current DB online data upgrade model feels *very opaque* to
> ops. They didn't realize the current model Nova was using, and didn't
> feel like it was documented anywhere.
> ACTION: document the DB data lifecycle better for operators
This is on me, so I'll take it. I've just thrown
On 16-09-20 09:20 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
This is a bit delayed due to the release rush, finally getting back to
writing up my experiences at the Ops Meetup.
Nova Feedback Session
=
We had a double session for Feedback for Nova from Operators, raw
etherpad here -
This is a bit delayed due to the release rush, finally getting back to
writing up my experiences at the Ops Meetup.
Nova Feedback Session
=
We had a double session for Feedback for Nova from Operators, raw
etherpad here - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/NYC-ops-Nova.
The
17 matches
Mail list logo