[placement][nova][ptg] Resource provider - request group mapping
jaypipes at gmail.com
Sun Apr 21 23:11:22 UTC 2019
On 04/10/2019 10:31 AM, Eric Fried wrote:
>> 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.
> I was getting ready to volunteer (again) to help move the ball on this
> because it's really important that we get this done.
> But then I started thinking, is it really? The workarounds we have in
> the client-side code right now are pretty sucky, but they work. The
> effort of $subject is an optimization and suck-reducer, but is it
> crucial? Probably not. Though I would like to hear from Cyborg before we
> decide we can live without it for Train.
>> When I move the spec I can add the open questions from the nova spec
>> review to the placement spec directly to help continuity. Is that OK?
>> Pinging Cyborg folks. Does Cyborg needs something similar?
> I know for sure this is a yes (somewhere around ?), but I won't be
> able to express the details as well as Sundar.
>> I can own the first alternative in the spec .
> I'll champion the one I described in the third comment at , where we
> add a "mappings" dict next to "allocations". IMO, it's a tad cleaner
> because it's per "allocations" rather than per "allocations.$rp".
After considering the alternatives, this is my preference as well.
Having a "mappings" key in each element of the "allocation_requests"
array makes sense to me: We are providing information *about that
particular allocation request's request group to provider mapping* and
therefore I feel this is the best location for it to be.
More information about the openstack-discuss