Re: [Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

On 22 March 2017 at 13:33, Jonathan Mills wrote: > > To what extent is it possible to “lock” a tenant to an availability zone, > to guarantee that nova scheduler doesn’t land an ITAR VM (and possibly the > wrong glance/cinder) into a non-ITAR space (and vice versa)… > Yes,

Re: [Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

Blaire, To what extent is it possible to “lock” a tenant to an availability zone, to guarantee that nova scheduler doesn’t land an ITAR VM (and possibly the wrong glance/cinder) into a non-ITAR space (and vice versa)… For just that concern, Mike Lowe was chatting with me off list about using

Re: [Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

Dims, it might be overkill to introduce multi-Keystone + federation (I just quickly skimmed the PDF so apologies if I have the wrong end of it)? Jon, you could just have multiple cinder-volume services and backends. We do this in the Nectar cloud - each site has cinder AZs matching nova AZs. By

Re: [Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

Thank you, Dims. I will read over this material. > On Mar 21, 2017, at 9:03 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Oops, Hit send before i finished > > https://info.massopencloud.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Workshop-Resource-Federation-in-a-Multi-Landlord-Cloud.pdf >

Re: [Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

Oops, Hit send before i finished https://info.massopencloud.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Workshop-Resource-Federation-in-a-Multi-Landlord-Cloud.pdf https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/mixmatch Essentially you can do a single cinder proxy that can work with multiple cinder backends (one

Re: [Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

Jonathan, The folks from Boston University have done some work around this idea: https://github.com/openstack/mixmatch/blob/master/doc/source/architecture.rst On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 7:33 PM, Jonathan Mills wrote: > Friends, > > I’m reaching out for assistance from anyone

[Openstack-operators] Dealing with ITAR in OpenStack private clouds

Friends, I’m reaching out for assistance from anyone who may have confronted the issue of dealing with ITAR data in an OpenStack cloud being used in some department of the Federal Gov. ITAR (https://www.pmddtc.state.gov/regulations_laws/itar.html) is a less restrictive level of security than

[Openstack-operators] [scientific][scientific-wg] Boston Forum task champions

Dear Scientific Working Group members, Following the email related to the forum presentations: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/user-committee/2017-March/001856.html and the work performed by our members during the brainstorming exercise for the Boston Forum:

[Openstack-operators] [deployment][forum] proposing a session about future of configuration management - ops + devs wanted!

OpenStack developers and operators who work on deployments: we need you. http://forumtopics.openstack.org/cfp/details/15 Abstract: I would like to bring Developers and Operators in a room to discuss about future of Configuration Management in OpenStack. Until now, we haven't done a good job in

[Openstack-operators] Glance image 'owner' survey

Hello operators, The Glance team is conducting another survey about Glance usage. This one is about image ownership, as controlled by the configuration option 'owner_is_tenant'. We could use answers from both operators who deploy using the default value as well as operators who use the

[Openstack-operators] [scientific][scientific-wg] Reminder: Scientific WG IRC meeting today at 2100 UTC

Hi all - We have a Scientific WG IRC meeting later today at 2100 UTC in channel #openstack-meeting. Everyone is welcome. The agenda[1] is a round-up of the goings-on at the operators meetup in Milan and discussion on input to the Forum at Boston. Scientific WG meeting details are available

Re: [Openstack-operators] Flavors

On 03/20/2017 04:24 PM, Blair Bethwaite wrote: For me an interesting question to know the answer to here would be at what point you have to stop resource sharing to guarantee your performance promises/SLAs (disregarding memory over-provisioning). My gut says that unless you are also doing all

[Openstack-operators] each project could only allocate floating ip from particular pool(external) ?

Hi,everyone! I have been working on this issue for a long time,and I really can not find a solution to it. I am trying to set up two external network (two network pools),such that project 1 could only allocate floating ip from pool 1 and project 2 could only allocate floating ip from pool 2,while

[Openstack-operators] [telecom-nfv] Meeting #22 is tomorrow

Hi All, If you can attend the meeting tomorrow, please do. Feel free to add to the agenda: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ops-telco-nfv-meeting-agenda Thanks, Curtis. ___ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org

Re: [Openstack-operators] need input on log translations

Doug, I'm not sure I understand how we'd do this, and I've already started to see some attempts at this come up and they are going to cause quite a lot of churn across the code base. I would like to have a clearer description of what projects must do, like a cross project goal. I'll catch you on