Open Stack

On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzumainn at redhat.com> wrote:

> So after reading the replies on this thread, it seems like I (and others
> advocating
> a custom scheduler) may have overthought things a bit.  The reason this
> route was
> suggested was because of conflicting goals for Icehouse:
>
> a) homogeneous nodes (to simplify requirements)
> b) support diverse hardware sets (to allow as many users as possible to
> try Tuskar)
>
> Option b) requires either a custom scheduler or forcing nodes to have the
> same attributes,
> and the answer to that question is where much of the debate lies.
>
> However, taking a step back, maybe the real answer is:
>
> a) homogeneous nodes
> b) document. . .
>    - **unsupported** means of "demoing" Tuskar (set node attributes to
> match flavors, hack
>      the scheduler, etc)
>    - our goals of supporting heterogeneous nodes for the J-release.
>
> Does this seem reasonable to everyone?
>

+1

-Deva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140131/0336bcc7/attachment.html>