[openstack-dev] [ironic] [nova] traits discussion call

Jay Pipes jaypipes at gmail.com
Mon Oct 30 14:13:46 UTC 2017


I'd prefer to have you on the call, Dima. How about we push it back to 
tomorrow at the same time?

Can everyone make it then?

-jay

On 10/30/2017 10:11 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Aaaand sorry again, but due to sudden errands I won't be able to attend. 
> Please feel free to use my bluejeans room anyway. I think my position on 
> traits is more or less clear from previous discussions with John, Sam 
> and Eric.
> 
> 2017-10-24 18:07 GMT+02:00 Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com 
> <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>>:
> 
>     Sigh, sorry. I forgot that we're moving back to winter time this
>     weekend. I *think* the time is 3pm UTC then. It seems to be 11am
>     eastern US:
>     https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20171030T150000&p1=37&p2=tz_et
>     <https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/converter.html?iso=20171030T150000&p1=37&p2=tz_et>.
> 
> 
>     On 10/24/2017 06:00 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> 
>         And the winner is Mon, 30 Oct, 2pm UTC!
> 
>         The bluejeans ID is https://bluejeans.com/757528759
>         <https://bluejeans.com/757528759>
>         (works without plugins in recent FF and Chrome; if it asks to
>         install an app, ignore it and look for a link saying "join with
>         browser")
> 
>         On 10/23/2017 05:02 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> 
>             Hi all!
> 
>             I'd like to invite you to the discussion of the way to
>             implement traits in
>             ironic and the ironic virt driver. Please vote for the time at
>             https://doodle.com/poll/ts43k98kkvniv8uz
>             <https://doodle.com/poll/ts43k98kkvniv8uz>. Please vote by
>             EOD tomorrow.
> 
>             Note that it's going to be a technical discussion - please
>             make sure you
>             understand what traits are and why ironic cares about them.
>             See below for more
>             context.
> 
>             We'll probably use my bluejeans account, as it works without
>             plugins in modern
>             browsers. I'll post a meeting ID when we pick the date.
> 
> 
>             On 10/23/2017 04:09 PM, Eric Fried wrote:
> 
>                 We discussed this a little bit further in IRC [1]. 
>                 We're all in
>                 agreement, but it's worth being precise on a couple of
>                 points:
> 
>                 * We're distinguishing between a "feature" and the
>                 "trait" that
>                 represents it in placement.  For the sake of this
>                 discussion, a
>                 "feature" can (maybe) be switched on or off, but a
>                 "trait" can either be
>                 present or absent on a RP.
>                 * It matters *who* can turn a feature on/off.
>                      * If it can be done by virt at spawn time, then it
>                 makes sense to have
>                 the trait on the RP, and you can switch the feature
>                 on/off via a
>                 separate extra_spec.
>                      * But if it's e.g. an admin action, and spawn has
>                 no control, then the
>                 trait needs to be *added* whenever the feature is *on*,
>                 and *removed*
>                 whenever the feature is *off*.
> 
>                 [1]
>                 http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13
>                 <http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13>
> 
> 
>                 On 10/23/2017 08:15 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>                     On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried
>                     <openstack at fried.cc
>                     <mailto:openstack at fried.cc
>                     <mailto:openstack at fried.cc>>> wrote:
> 
>                            I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
> 
>                            * A resource provider should be marked with a
>                     trait if that feature
>                              * Can be turned on or off (whether it's
>                     currently on or not); or
>                              * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
> 
> 
>                     No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider
>                     stops providing a
>                     capability, then the existing related trait should
>                     just be removed,
>                     that's it.
>                     If you see a trait, that's just means that the
>                     related capability for
>                     the Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.
> 
>                     MHO.
> 
>                     -Sylvain
> 
> 
> 
>                            * A consumer wanting that feature present
>                     (doesn't matter whether it's
>                            on or off) should specify it as a required
>                     *trait*.
>                            * A consumer wanting that feature present and
>                     turned on should
>                              * Specify it as a required trait; AND
>                              * Indicate that it be turned on via some
>                     other mechanism (e.g. a
>                            separate extra_spec).
> 
>                            I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's)
>                     needs, but also Jay's drive
>                            for placement purity.
> 
>                            Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
> 
>                            Thanks,
>                            Eric
> 
>                            On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>
>                            <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>]
>                            > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
>                            > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
>                            <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>                     <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>                            <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>                     <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>>
>                            > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic]
>                     ironic and traits
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > Writing from my phone... May I ask that
>                     before you proceed with any plan
>                            > that uses traits for state information that
>                     we have a hangout or
>                            > videoconference to discuss this?
>                     Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm
>                            > not able to do a hangout but I can do one
>                     on Wednesday any time of the day.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I
>                     did bring up at the
>                            ptg that
>                            > we wanted to standardizes tratis for
>                     “verified boot” /*
>                            >
>                            > */that included a trait for uefi secure
>                     boot enabled and to
>                            indicated a
>                            > hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot
>                     guard or similar/*
>                            >
>                            > */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag
>                     nova compute hosts with those
>                            > new traits so we could require that vms
>                     that request/*
>                            >
>                            > */a host with uefi secure boot enabled and
>                     a hardware root of
>                            trust are
>                            > scheduled only to those nodes. /*
>                            >
>                            > */ /*
>                            >
>                            > */There are many other examples that effect
>                     both vms and bare
>                            metal such
>                            > as, ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die, /*
>                            >
>                            > */l3 cache code and data prioritization,
>                     vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper
>                            > threading, power states … all of these
>                     feature may be present on the
>                            > platform/*
>                            >
>                            > */but I also need to know if they are
>                     turned on. Ruling out state in
>                            > traits means all of this logic will
>                     eventually get pushed to scheduler
>                            > filters/*
>                            >
>                            > */which will be suboptimal long term as
>                     more state is tracked.
>                            Software
>                            > defined infrastructure may be the future
>                     but hardware defined
>                            software/*
>                            >
>                            > */is sadly the present…/*
>                            >
>                            > */ /*
>                            >
>                            > */I do however think there should be a
>                     sperateion between asking for a
>                            > host that provides x with a trait and 
>                     asking for x to be
>                            configure via/*
>                            >
>                            > */A trait. The trait secure_boot_enabled
>                     should never result in the
>                            > feature being enabled It should just find a
>                     host with it on. If
>                            you want/*
>                            >
>                            > */To request it to be turned on you would
>                     request a host with
>                            > secure_boot_capable as a trait and have a
>                     flavor extra spec or image
>                            > property to request/*
>                            >
>                            > */Ironic to enabled it.  these are two very
>                     different request and
>                            should
>                            > not be treated the same. /*
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > Lemme know!
>                            >
>                            > -jay
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            > On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur"
>                     <dtantsur at redhat.com <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>
>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com
>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>>
>                            > <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com
>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>
>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com
>                     <mailto:dtantsur at redhat.com>>>> wrote:
>                            >
>                            >     Hi Jay!
>                            >
>                            >     I appreciate your comments, but I think
>                     you're approaching the
>                            >     problem from purely VM point of view.
>                     Things simply don't work the
>                            >     same way in bare metal, at least not if
>                     we want to provide the same
>                            >     user experience.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >     On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay
>                     Pipes <jaypipes at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>
>                            >     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com
>                     <mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com>>>> wrote:
>                            >
>                            >         Sorry for delay, took a week off
>                     before starting a new job.
>                            >         Comments inline.
>                            >
>                            >         On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry
>                     Tantsur wrote:
>                            >
>                            >             Hi all,
>                            >
>                            >             I promised John to dump my
>                     thoughts on traits to the
>                            ML, so
>                            >             here we go :)
>                            >
>                            >             I see two roles of traits (or
>                     kinds of traits) for
>                            bare metal:
>                            >             1. traits that say what the
>                     node can do already (e.g. "the
>                            >             node is
>                            >             doing UEFI boot")
>                            >             2. traits that say what the
>                     node can be *configured* to do
>                            >             (e.g. "the node can
>                            >             boot in UEFI mode")
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         There's only one role for traits.
>                     #2 above. #1 is state
>                            >         information. Traits are not for
>                     state information. Traits are
>                            >         only for communicating capabilities
>                     of a resource provider
>                            >         (baremetal node).
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >     These are not different, that's what
>                     I'm talking about here. No
>                            >     users care about the difference between
>                     "this node was put in UEFI
>                            >     mode by an operator in advance", "this
>                     node was put in UEFI
>                            mode by
>                            >     an ironic driver on demand" and "this
>                     node is always in UEFI mode,
>                            >     because it's AARCH64 and it does not
>                     have BIOS". These situation
>                            >     produce the same result (the node is
>                     booted in UEFI mode), and
>                            thus
>                            >     it's up to ironic to hide this difference.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >     My suggestion with traits is one way to
>                     do it, I'm not sure
>                            what you
>                            >     suggest though.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         For example, let's say we add the
>                     following to the os-traits
>                            >         library [1]
>                            >
>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_0
>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_1
>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_5
>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_6
>                            >         * STORAGE_RAID_10
>                            >
>                            >         The Ironic administrator would add
>                     all RAID-related traits to
>                            >         the baremetal nodes that had the
>                     *capability* of
>                            supporting that
>                            >         particular RAID setup [2]
>                            >
>                            >         When provisioned, the baremetal
>                     node would either have RAID
>                            >         configured in a certain level or
>                     not configured at all.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         A very important note: the
>                     Placement API and Nova
>                            scheduler (or
>                            >         future Ironic scheduler) doesn't
>                     care about this. At all.
>                            I know
>                            >         it sounds like I'm being callous,
>                     but I'm not. Placement and
>                            >         scheduling doesn't care about the
>                     state of things. It only
>                            cares
>                            >         about the capabilities of target
>                     destinations. That's it.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >     Yes, because VMs always start with a
>                     clean state, and
>                            hypervisor is
>                            >     there to ensure that. We don't have
>                     this luxury in ironic :) E.g.
>                            >     our SNMP driver is not even aware of
>                     boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS
>                            >     configuration), which does not mean
>                     that a node using it cannot be
>                            >     in UEFI mode (have a RAID or BIOS
>                     pre-configured, etc, etc).
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >             This seems confusing, but it's
>                     actually very useful.
>                            Say, I
>                            >             have a flavor that
>                            >             requests UEFI boot via a trait.
>                     It will match both the
>                            nodes
>                            >             that are already in
>                            >             UEFI mode, as well as nodes
>                     that can be put in UEFI mode.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         No :) It will only match nodes that
>                     have the UEFI capability.
>                            >         The set of providers that have the
>                     ability to be booted
>                            via UEFI
>                            >         is *always* a superset of the set
>                     of providers that *have been
>                            >         booted via UEFI*. Placement and
>                     scheduling decisions only care
>                            >         about that superset -- the
>                     providers with a particular
>                            capability.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >     Well, no, it will. Again, you're purely
>                     basing on the VM idea,
>                            where
>                            >     a VM is always *put* in UEFI mode, no
>                     matter how the hypervisor
>                            >     looks like. It is simply not the case
>                     for us. You have to care
>                            what
>                            >     state the node is, because many drivers
>                     cannot change this state.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >             This idea goes further with
>                     deploy templates (new concept
>                            >             we've been thinking
>                            >             about). A flavor can request
>                     something like CUSTOM_RAID_5,
>                            >             and it will match the
>                            >             nodes that already have RAID 5,
>                     or, more
>                            interestingly, the
>                            >             nodes on which we
>                            >             can build RAID 5 before
>                     deployment. The UEFI example above
>                            >             can be treated in a
>                            >             similar way.
>                            >
>                            >             This ends up with two sources
>                     of knowledge about traits in
>                            >             ironic:
>                            >             1. Operators setting something
>                     they know about hardware
>                            >             ("this node is in UEFI
>                            >             mode"),
>                            >             2. Ironic drivers reporting
>                     something they
>                            >                2.1. know about hardware
>                     ("this node is in UEFI mode" -
>                            >             again)
>                            >                2.2. can do about hardware
>                     ("I can put this node in
>                            UEFI
>                            >             mode")
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         You're correct that both pieces of
>                     information are important.
>                            >         However, only the "can do about
>                     hardware" part is relevant to
>                            >         Placement and Nova.
>                            >
>                            >             For case #1 we are planning on
>                     a new CRUD API to set/unset
>                            >             traits for a node.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         I would *strongly* advise against
>                     this. Traits are not for
>                            state
>                            >         information.
>                            >
>                            >         Instead, consider having a DB (or
>                     JSON) schema that lists
>                            state
>                            >         information in fields that are
>                     explicitly for that state
>                            >         information.
>                            >
>                            >         For example, a schema that looks
>                     like this:
>                            >
>                            >         {
>                            >           "boot": {
>                            >             "mode": <one of 'bios' or 'uefi'>,
>                            >             "params": <dict>
>                            >           },
>                            >           "disk": {
>                            >             "raid": {
>                            >               "level": <int>,
>                            >               "controller": <one of 'sw' or
>                     'hw'>,
>                            >               "driver": <string>,
>                            >               "params": <dict>
>                            >             },  ...
>                            >           },
>                            >           "network": {
>                            >             ...
>                            >           }
>                            >         }
>                            >
>                            >         etc, etc.
>                            >
>                            >         Don't use trait strings to
>                     represent state information.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >     I don't see an alternative proposal
>                     that will satisfy what we have
>                            >     to solve.
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         Best,
>                            >         -jay
>                            >
>                            >             Case #2 is more interesting. We
>                     have two options, I think:
>                            >
>                            >             a) Operators still set traits
>                     on nodes, drivers are simply
>                            >             validating them. E.g.
>                            >             an operators sets
>                     CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID
>                            >             interface checks if it is
>                            >             possible to do. The downside is
>                     obvious - with a lot of
>                            >             deploy templates
>                            >             available it can be a lot of
>                     manual work.
>                            >
>                            >             b) Drivers report the traits,
>                     and they get somehow
>                            added to
>                            >             the traits provided
>                            >             by an operator. Technically,
>                     there are sub-cases again:
>                            >                b.1) The new traits API
>                     returns a union of
>                            >             operator-provided and
>                            >             driver-provided traits
>                            >                b.2) The new traits API
>                     returns only operator-provided
>                            >             traits; driver-provided
>                            >             traits are returned e.g. via a
>                     new field
>                            >             (node.driver_traits). Then nova
>                     will
>                            >             have to merge the lists itself.
>                            >
>                            >             My personal favorite is the
>                     last option: I'd like a clear
>                            >             distinction between
>                            >             different "sources" of traits,
>                     but I'd also like to reduce
>                            >             manual work for
>                            >             operators.
>                            >
>                            >             A valid counter-argument is:
>                     what if an operator wants to
>                            >             override a
>                            >             driver-provided trait? E.g. a
>                     node can do RAID 5, but I
>                            >             don't want this
>                            >             particular node to do it for
>                     any reason. I'm not sure if
>                            >             it's a valid case, and
>                            >             what to do about it.
>                            >
>                            >             Let me know what you think.
>                            >
>                            >             Dmitry
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >         [1]
>                     http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/
>                     <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/>
>                           
>                     <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/
>                     <http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/>>
>                            >         [2] Based on how many attached
>                     disks the node had, the
>                            presence
>                            >         and abilities of a hardware RAID
>                     controller, etc
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                           
>                       __________________________________________________________________________
>                            >         OpenStack Development Mailing List
>                     (not for usage questions)
>                            >         Unsubscribe:
>                            >
>                     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                           
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>                            >
>                            
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                           
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>>
>                            >
>                     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>                           
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >   
>                       __________________________________________________________________________
>                            >     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not
>                     for usage questions)
>                            >     Unsubscribe:
>                            >
>                     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                           
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>                            >
>                            
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                           
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>>
>                            >
>                     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>                           
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                            >
>                           
>                     __________________________________________________________________________
>                            > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
>                     usage questions)
>                            > Unsubscribe:
>                     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                           
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>                            >
>                     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>                           
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
>                            >
> 
>                           
>                     __________________________________________________________________________
>                            OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
>                     usage questions)
>                            Unsubscribe:
>                     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                           
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>>
>                     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>                           
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                     __________________________________________________________________________
>                     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>                     questions)
>                     Unsubscribe:
>                     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
> 
> 
>                 __________________________________________________________________________
>                 OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>                 Unsubscribe:
>                 OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>                 <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>                 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>                 <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     __________________________________________________________________________
>     OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>     Unsubscribe:
>     OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>     <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> --
> -- Dmitry Tantsur
> --
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list