[cinder][ops] Nested Quota Driver Use?
lbragstad at gmail.com
Wed May 8 17:13:47 UTC 2019
On 5/7/19 3:22 PM, Jay Bryant wrote:
> 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
>>> would need Nova/Cinder/Manila at miniumum for CERN to switch.
>>> So, no objections to deprecation but strong support to converge on
>>> unified limits.
>> 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
>> If anyone has any concerns about this plan, please feel free to raise
>> them here
>> or on that review.
> 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.
If you happen to notice anyone else contributing to the cinder-specific
implementation, feel free to have them reach out to us. If people are
interested in developing and adopting unified limits, we're happy to get
them up-to-speed on the current approach.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the openstack-discuss