[openstack-dev] [OSC][ironic][mogan][nova] mogan and nova co-existing
niu.zglinux at gmail.com
Wed May 31 02:08:51 UTC 2017
Thanks Ruby for bringing this up!
There would be a collision if nova and mogan consume the same ironic nodes
cluster, as both of them will see all the available node resources. So if
someone wants to choose mogan for baremetal compute management, the
recommended deployment is Mogan+Ironic for baremetals and Nova+Libvirt for
VMs, this way we treat baremetals and vms as different compute resources.
In a cloud with both vms and baremetals, it's more clear to have different
set of APIs to manage them if users really care about what resources they
got instead of just the performance. We also create a mogan horizon plugin
which adds separated baremetal servers panel.
But for users who don't care whether it's a vm or baremetal server, they
just want to ask OpenStack for a specific flavor of compute resource to run
the workloads, it's definitely no need to deploy Mogan to separate
baremetals to a different compute resource to expose full baremetal
On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:55 PM, Loo, Ruby <ruby.loo at intel.com> wrote:
> Hi Zhenguo (and others),
> is there a description/email thread/documentation about how mogan and nova
> co-exists in the same cloud? In particular, will it be possible for mogan
> and nova (with ironic driver) to run? Is this something that we will
> recommend or not recommend or not mention? Because I don't see how the end
> user will know to issue a mogan command to get a baremetal server, vs a
> nova-boot command to get a baremetal server. And/or does anyone envison
> that horizon will hide all that from the user somehow?
> *From: *Zhenguo Niu <niu.zglinux at gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Date: *Thursday, May 25, 2017 at 10:41 PM
> *To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [openstack-dev] [OSC][ironic][mogan] Can we share the same
> keyword 'baremetal'?
> As I understand, baremetal instance in nova is a 'specical virtual
> machine'(raw performance). Users claim the instance by specifying a flavor
> with 'vcpus', 'memory', "root_gb" instead of real hardware specs like (cpu
> model/cores, hard drives type/amount, nics type/amount), then he get an
> instance with properties like 'vm_state' and other 'virtual' stuff. As
> baremetal in nova use the same model and same set of API that designed for
> vms, so even for end users, it's not that easy to know which instance is a
> baremetal server, so maybe it's good to call that baremetal server a
> special vm instance.
> So, yes the end user actually know that there is a difference between
> getting a bremetal instance via mogan or via nova :)
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev