[glance][interop] standardized image "name" ?

Tobias Rydberg tobias.rydberg at citynetwork.eu
Fri Apr 12 08:07:04 UTC 2019

Like this idea! This is definitely one of the pain points for public 
cloud end users trying to setup multi-cloud implementations.

A combination of the two suggestions, guidelines for naming and 
properties on the public images would be *good enough* for most of the 
end users we have as public cloud. What I understand from them is that 
they are not super interested (again, most of them) in the very detailed 
differences that might be between images of the same OS and version, and 
for the rest out there that is important for, this will still be a 
better experience for them than what we have today.


Tobias Rydberg
Senior Developer
Twitter & IRC: tobberydberg

www.citynetwork.eu | www.citycloud.com

ISO 9001, 14001, 27001, 27015 & 27018 CERTIFIED

On 2019-04-11 16:07, Brian Rosmaita wrote:
> On 4/7/19 5:35 PM, Mohammed Naser wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> Something that I've been dealing with is the fact that regardless of
>> what cloud you're using, the naming structure is very much different.
>> While we aim to be interoperable, if I want to "boot an Debian Stretch
>> server", the image name will probably be different all over the
>> places.
>> Is there some sort of way we can eliminate this by implementing a
>> standard naming convention which would allow us to use the same images
>> across all systems?
>> I'm just opening the idea for discussion, I'd love to hear what others
>> think about this.
>> Mohammed
> Sorry to be late to the discussion.  We've had Forum/PTG sessions on
> this, and while everyone agrees that something needs to be done, it's
> difficult to standardize on what.  The key takeaway has been to use some
> combination of the common image properties (as Tim suggests).  The
> upside is that these are propagated by the nova image-create action
> (unless they're ruled out by the nova non_inheritable_image_properties
> config), and so a user snapshot will have the os_distro and os_version
> on them, so this info won't be lost by an image rename.  (The naming
> scheme Fei Long describes is a clever way to get this info into the
> image name, but it has the downside that it will be lost on user snapshots.)
> If the current common image properties aren't sufficient, it's easy to
> extend them because under the hood they're simply custom image
> properties for which people have agreed on a name and (more or less)
> what the value should be.  For example, a 'description' property was
> added in the Stein release.
> Also, just a reminder that "hidden" images were introduced in Rocky via
> the 'os_hidden' image property; they allow you to make only your most
> recent public images show up by default in a users' image-list calls.
> cheers,
> brian

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list