On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 16:29, Balázs Gibizer <balazs.gibizer@est.tech> wrote:
On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 13:50, Balázs Gibizer <balazs.gibizer@est.tech> wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 23:48, Sean Mooney <smooney@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2020-05-19 at 21:55 +0200, Slawek Kaplonski wrote:
[snip]
Also I would like to tease out the Neutron team's opinion about the option of implementing Option B on the neutron side. E.g.: * User request a min bw rule replacement * Neutron reads the current allocation of the port.device_id (i.e instance_uuid) from placement * Neutron calculates the difference between the bw resource request of the old min bw rule and the new min bw rule * Neutron adds this difference to the bw allocation of the RP indicated by the value of port.binding_profile['allocation'] (which is an RP uuid) and the PUTs the new instance allocation back to placement. If the PUT /allocations call succeed the the rule replacement is accepted and if the PUT /allocations fails then the rule replacement is rejected to the end user.
On the PTG we agreed that * There will be an RFE on neutron to allow in-place min bandwidth allocation change based on the above drafted sequence * Triggering a resize due to interface attach or port.resource_request change seems insane. In the future we might look at that from a different perspective. I.e. What if a resize could take a new parameter that indicates that the resize is not due to flavor change but due to bandwidth change. Cheers, gibi [snip]
Cheers, gibi