On 08/10/2015 10:11 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
In re: Different architectures.
I'm not saying we should create architecture specific definitions in our
APIs. I like the idea of capabilities being exposed as arbitrary strings
like "AES" or "AltiVec". An Intel user would be providing an IA arch
On 08/10/2015 09:55 AM, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
In re: user specifying requirements
Note that we have 2 different requirements here:
1) The cloud user needs to be able to specify "I want to run this image on a machine
that supports capability `foo'".
2) The cloud provider needs to be able to
015 8:19 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How should we expose host capabilities to the
scheduler
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 04:49:59PM +0100, Alexis Lee wrote:
> Dugger, Donald D said on Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 05:39:49AM +:
> &g
om]
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 9:22 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] How should we expose host capabilities to the
scheduler
On 08/10/2015 08:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> The Glance metadefs stuff is problematic in a number of ways:
>
> 1) It wasn't w
On 08/10/2015 08:05 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
The Glance metadefs stuff is problematic in a number of ways:
1) It wasn't written with Nova in mind at all, but rather for UI needs. This
means it introduces a bunch of constants that are different from the constants
in Nova.
2) It uses a custom JSON f
On 08/03/2015 09:57 AM, Dulko, Michal wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com]
Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 7:40 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] How should we expose host capabilities
On Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 04:49:59PM +0100, Alexis Lee wrote:
> Dugger, Donald D said on Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 05:39:49AM +:
> > Also note that, although many capabilities can be represented by
> > simple key/value pairs (e.g. the presence of a specific special
> > instruction) that is not true fo
Dugger, Donald D said on Mon, Aug 03, 2015 at 05:39:49AM +:
> Also note that, although many capabilities can be represented by
> simple key/value pairs (e.g. the presence of a specific special
> instruction) that is not true for all capabilities (e.g. Numa topology
> doesn't really fit into thi
> -Original Message-
> From: Dugger, Donald D [mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 3, 2015 7:40 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: [openstack-dev] How should we expose host capabilities to the
> scheduler
As we discussed at the mid-cycle meetup there is a bit of an issue related to
host capabilities. Currently, we are overloading the flavor extra_specs with a
whole lot of meaning, including requirements for specific host capabilities.
Although this has allowed some impressive extension capabili
10 matches
Mail list logo
