On Thu, 11 Apr 2019, Sean Mooney wrote:
long term i think there is value in have richer query syntax in placement but if we need to pause that to think about it some more, i think that is an ok viewpoint to express. i would personally prefer to have a clean way to express requrement that is maintainable and does not tie our hands going forward. again with that said if we decised not to use placment for numa in train i hope we can pusue using the facilities that we already have to make some progress instead and not block those efforst on "we shoudl do this with placemetn" if we have decided not to do them in placement in train. i know alot of nova folks wont like that as it means we have to keep some of the complexity in nova but i would at least like to have that conversation.
I think the pros you present (and other have presented) are (and have been) strong enough that doing NUMA via nested-in-placement is the right way to go. The gist of my prior rant is not so much that I don't like nested but that I don't like the reasons for its existence (NUMA and other hardware awarenesses) and the costs from those reasons. The resolve is: I have to get past that; it's what we've got. Since that's what we've got may as well be placement that makes it cleaner. It's good for that sort of thing. But it also means that I will sometimes be compelled to defend the simpler way, as at the "horrible idea" in my comment at https://review.openstack.org/#/c/650476/1/doc/source/specs/train/approved/20... -- Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/ freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent