Hello Stackers,
As I'm sure many of you know there was a talk about doing "skip-level"[0]
upgrades at the OpenStack Summit which quite a few folks were interested
in. Today many of the interested parties got together and talked about
doing more of this in a formalized capacity. Essentially we're l
I think a option 2 is better.
Best Regards
Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
From: Lance Bragstad [lbrags...@gmail.com]
Sent: 25 May 2017 3:47
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions);
openstack-operators@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-d
Hello Operators,
There's a Glance spec up for fixing OSSN-0075. It would be really
helpful to know how operators feel about the impact of the proposal
and the alternatives described in the spec:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/468179/
(Something you may not know is that if you click on the
'ga
On 05/25/2017 01:53 PM, Marc Heckmann wrote:
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 11:46 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
What do operators think we should do? I see two options, neither of
which is
really ideal:
1) Decide that the "new" behaviour has been out in the wild long
enough to
become the defacto standa
See below.
On Thu, 2017-05-25 at 15:49 -0500, Lance Bragstad wrote:
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Marc Heckmann
mailto:marc.heckm...@ubisoft.com>> wrote:
First of all @Lance, thanks for taking the time to write and summarize this for
us. It's much appreciated.
Absolutely! it helps me thin
On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Marc Heckmann
wrote:
> First of all @Lance, thanks for taking the time to write and summarize
> this for us. It's much appreciated.
>
Absolutely! it helps me think about it, too.
>
> While I'm not aware of all the nuances, based on my own testing, I feel
> that
Sorry for the late reply, but see below.
On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 11:46 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In Mitaka nova introduced the "cpu_thread_policy" which can be
> specified in
> flavor extra-specs. In the original spec, and in the original
> implementation,
> not specifying the thread
First of all @Lance, thanks for taking the time to write and summarize this for
us. It's much appreciated.
While I'm not aware of all the nuances, based on my own testing, I feel that we
are really close with option 1.
That being said, as you already stated, option 2 is clearly more inline with