<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0cm;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">+1<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Given the rest of the OpenStack quota handling is per project, we should be consistent (i.e. no per-user or per-group quotas, just per-project).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">In the long term, unified limits will allow us to have the finer grain control (by creating sub-projects for specific use cases).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">However, in my experience, this level of control for server groups should be deprecated.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">If there are use cases, let’s address them with the new facilities that are being developed in an upcoming forum.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB">Tim<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0cm 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">From:
</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;color:black">Jay Pipes <jaypipes@gmail.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Wednesday, 13 March 2019 at 15:44<br>
<b>To: </b>melanie witt <melwittt@gmail.com><br>
<b>Cc: </b>"openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org" <openstack-discuss@lists.openstack.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [nova] Does anyone remember why server_group_members quota is enforced at the user rather than project level?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 4:10 PM melanie witt <<a href="mailto:melwittt@gmail.com">melwittt@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:08:46 -0600, Matt Riedemann <<a href="mailto:mriedemos@gmail.com" target="_blank">mriedemos@gmail.com</a>>
<br>
wrote:<br>
> Change [1] in Juno added the server_groups and server_group_members quotas.<br>
> <br>
> Server group quota is counted per project and user [2].<br>
> <br>
> Server group member quota is only counted per group and user [3].<br>
> <br>
> The question coming up in IRC today is why is the server group member<br>
> count not also constrained by project? Or is project implied since the<br>
> member count is within the scope of a group, which is itself per-project?<br>
> <br>
> Note that the original change that added these quotas said, "They can be<br>
> defined per project or per user within a project".<br>
<br>
When it says, "they can be defined per project or per user within a <br>
project," that means the quota _limit_ can be defined per project or per <br>
user. Which means, you can define a quota of 100 server group members <br>
for anyone in project A, but could restrict user B in project A to only <br>
10 server group members, if you wanted to. So, the quota limit is <br>
definable per project or per project + user.<br>
<br>
This is different than how the server group members are counted. As you <br>
pointed out, server group members are counted only per user, not per <br>
project. I don't know the reasoning behind it either. It might be like <br>
you speculated, that since server groups are owned by a project, then <br>
server group members have a project implied.<br>
<br>
> Given none of the people that originally added this are around still<br>
> maintaining it, nor was there a spec (we didn't have specs in Juno),<br>
> we're left to guess as to the reasons.<br>
> <br>
> If we changed the server_group_members quota enforcement to count per<br>
> group/project/user, would that break anything?<br>
<br>
It would behave differently, but I'm not aware of anything that would <br>
break. When we talked about moving nova to unified limits, I think the <br>
plan was to change any existing per-user counts to count by project <br>
instead (along with deprecating any per-user quota limit setting). I <br>
think that server group members and key pairs are the only two that <br>
count by user only, today.<o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Yep, and IMHO, keypairs is the one and only valid user-specific limit.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">A quota on server group members just never really made any sense to me to begin with. a) making it per-user doesn't make much sense and b) this is a perfect example of using quotas as a poor man's rate-limiting
middleware (just like having quotas on any "resource" that is essentially just a record in a database -- i.e. any of the quotas on things like metadata items...)<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">We should just get rid of the server group and server group members quotas entirely, IMHO.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Best,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">-jay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>