[cinder][ops] Nested Quota Driver Use?

Tim Bell Tim.Bell at cern.ch
Fri May 3 18:58:41 UTC 2019

We're interested in the overall functionality but I think unified limits is the place to invest and thus would not have any problem deprecating this driver. 

We'd really welcome this being implemented across all the projects in a consistent way. The sort of functionality proposed in https://techblog.web.cern.ch/techblog/post/nested-quota-models/  would need Nova/Cinder/Manila at miniumum for CERN to switch.

So, no objections to deprecation  but strong support to converge on unified limits.


-----Original Message-----
From: Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>
Date: Thursday, 2 May 2019 at 02:39
To: "openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org" <openstack-discuss at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [cinder][ops] Nested Quota Driver Use?

    Hey everyone,
    I'm hoping to get some feedback from folks, especially operators.
    In the Liberty release, Cinder introduced the ability to use a Nest Quota
    Driver to handle cases of heirarchical projects and quota enforcement [0].
    I have not heard of anyone actually using this. I also haven't seen any bugs
    filed, which makes me a little suspicious given how complicated it can be.
    I would like to know if any operators are using this for nested quotas. There
    is an effort underway for a new mechanism called "unified limits" that will
    require a lot of modifications to the Cinder code. If this quota driver is not
    needed, I would like to deprecated it in Train so it can be removed in the U
    release and hopefully prevent some unnecessary work being done.
    Any feedback on this would be appreciated.
    [0] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/cinder-specs/specs/liberty/cinder-nested-quota-driver.html

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list