[placement][nova][ptg] Resource provider - request group mapping
balazs.gibizer at ericsson.com
Wed Apr 10 09:36:43 UTC 2019
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 7:46 PM, Chris Dent <cdent+os at anticdent.org>
> This is about this spec  "Resource provider - request group
> mapping in allocation candidate" which didn't get approved in Stein
> and will need to find its appropriate home (in placement) at some
> point. This topic is from the cross project etherpad .
It is on my TODO list to create a story for it in placement and move
the spec to the placement repo. I don't know when I will reach this
item on my list, sorry.
> The questions associated with this are of two forms:
> * How should the data be presented in the allocation candidates
> * How best to capture the pending discussion on a nova spec as is
> moved to becoming a placement spec.
When I move the spec I can add the open questions from the nova spec
review to the placement spec directly to help continuity. Is that OK?
> There's quite a lot of useful information on the spec, including
> multiple alternatives and reasons why those alternatives are good or
> not good.
> This is one those API changes where we need to be careful to be
> general and within the existing grammar of placement and not simply
> evolving reactively to increased complexity in Nova. Obviously
> Placement needs to be evolve in response to Nova, but carefully.
Pinging Cyborg folks. Does Cyborg needs something similar? If yes then
we can have at least two users of such API.
> What might be useful is for people who feel some ownership for the
> various proposed structures to discuss their merits, here. Or go the
> other way: If there are some structures you dislike, why?
I can own the first alternative in the spec .
>  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/597601/
>  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ptg-train-xproj-nova-placement
> Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶
> freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
More information about the openstack-discuss