[cinder][ops] Nested Quota Driver Use?

Jay Bryant jungleboyj at gmail.com
Tue May 7 20:22:25 UTC 2019

On 5/7/2019 9:20 AM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
> On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 06:58:41PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
>> 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.
>> Tim
> Thanks Tim, that helps.
> Since there wasn't any other feedback, and no one jumping up to say they are
> using it today, I have submitted https://review.opendev.org/657511 to
> deprecated the current quota driver so we don't have to try to refactor that
> functionality into whatever we need to do for the unified limits support.
> If anyone has any concerns about this plan, please feel free to raise them here
> or on that review.
> Thanks!
> Sean


If I remember correctly, IBM had put some time into trying to fix the 
nested quota driver back around the Kilo or Liberty release. I haven't 
seen much activity since then.

I am in support deprecating the driver and going to unified limits given 
that that appears to be the general direction of OpenStack.


More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list