Open Stack

2013/12/9 Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com>

> Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2013-12-09 09:34:06 -0800:
> > I'm thinking more generic:
> >
> > The cloud provider will provide one or more "suballocating" images. The
> one Triple O uses to take a bare metal node and make vm's available would
> be the obvious one to make available initially. I think that one should not
> have a security concern since it is already being used in that way safely.
>
> I like where you're going with this, in that the cloud should eventually
> become "self aware" enough to be able to privision the baremetal resources
> it has and spin nova up on them. I do think that is quite far out. Right
> now, we have two nova's.. an undercloud nova which owns all the baremetal,
> and an overcloud nova which owns all the vms. This is definitely nested,
> but there is a hard line between the two.
>
> For many people, that hard line is a feature. For others, it is a bug.  :)
>
>
Could we imagine that an end-user would like to provision one undercloud
host plus a certain number of overcloud nodes so that the Scheduler for
undercloud Nova would deny other hosts but the ones provisioned ?
As a contrary,  Scheduler for other undercloud Nova's need to deny the
provisioning of the nodes hosted by another tenant than the requester...
I played with TripleO a few months ago (August/September, before the merge
with Tuskar) so that's a bit unclear for me, but I'm just saying we could
potentially achieve this by using Climate which does deploy its own
Scheduler Filter for making sure the proper hosts are booted.

-Sylvain
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20131214/610c45d8/attachment.html>