Matt Riedemann wrote:
> I just read through the blog post [1] about the upcoming Forum at the
> summit. That might help things, at least that's the intent so I'd hope
> it helps. We have had design summit sessions in the past where the nova
> team asks for feedback from operators/users but those we
Hi all,
The agenda is available at:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/massively_distributed_ircmeetings_2017 (line
82)
Please feel free to add items to the agenda.
The meeting while take place on #openstack-meeting.
Cheers,
Anthony
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
__
On 01/16/2017 04:02 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>
>> On Jan 16, 2017, at 11:03 AM, Matt Riedemann
>> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>> On 1/12/2017 7:30 PM, Melvin Hillsman wrote:
>>> Hey everyone,
>>>
>>> I am hoping to get a dialogue started to gain some insight around things
>>> Op
+1 Sean
The new format will help a lot the communication between people developing
OpenStack code and people putting in production that code ;-)
Thanks Melvin!
Edgar
On 1/17/17, 6:51 AM, "Sean Dague" wrote:
On 01/16/2017 04:02 PM, Jonathan Bryce wrote:
>
>> On Jan 16, 2017, at
Hello all -
We have a Scientific WG IRC meeting on Wednesday at 0900 UTC on channel
#openstack-meeting.
The agenda is available here[1] and full IRC meeting details are here[2].
This week we are looking at some upcoming events in the calendar, and then
talking about federation (in its various
What Tim said :)
my ordering:
1) Preemptable Instances -- this would be huge and life changing I'd
give up any other improvements to get this.
2) Deeper utilization of nested projects -- mostly we find ways to
mange with out this but it would be great to have.
A) to allow research gro
Sorry for the late reply, but wanted to add a few things.
OpenStack UX did suggest to the foundation that the community needs a
second survey that focuses exclusively on operators. The rationale was
that the user survey is primarily focused on marketing data and there isn't
really a ton of space
I can see a huge problem with your contributing operators... all of them
are enterprise.
enterprise needs are radically different from small to medium deployers who
openstack has traditionally failed to work well for.
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Piet Kruithof
wrote:
> Sorry for the late r
Another +1 for mult-attach please.
On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 6:09 AM, Amrith Kumar
wrote:
> I echo this sentiment; attaching a single Cinder volume or a group of
> volumes in a consistency group to multiple instances would be something I’d
> like to see in Pike.
>
>
>
> -amrith
>
>
>
> *From:* Yag
Well said, as a consequence of this thread being on the mailing list, I
hope that we can get *all* operators, end-users, and app-developers to
respond. If you are aware of folks who do not fall under the "enterprise"
label please encourage them directly to respond; I would encourage everyone
to do
Hello,
I read the meeting log and etherpad, and find that you mentioned OPNFV
Multisite and Kingbird
project. Some comment on these multi-site related projects: OPNFV multisite,
kingbird, tricircle.
Multisite is a requirement project in OPNFV to identify the gap and requirement
in OpenStack to
On 01/04/2017 07:31 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from George Shuklin's message of 2016-12-26 00:22:38 +0200:
Hello everyone.
Did someone actually made Ironic running with ToR (top rack switches)
under neutron in production? Which switch verdor/plugin (and OS version)
do you use? Do you have
12 matches
Mail list logo
