On 2025-05-29 13:18, Sean Mooney wrote:
[snip]
>>> One problem which I wanted to highlight with Instance naming, is a
>>> very unobvious one for those whose native language is English. But
>>> in both of my native languages, the word "Instance" is kind of
>>> either untranslatable, or does have a totally unrelated meaning to
>>> the tech industry. With that Server is totally widespread, used and
>>> understood.
>>> I tried to check translations for EC2 and GCP, but neither of them
>>> have actually translated these pages at all.
>> Now here I would disagree.
>> Server tends to imply hardware but it works equally for the person
>> bringing me lunch.
>> Having that also be description of virtual machines has actually led
>> to confusion in conversations.
>> Instance is at least different from the name of the hardware the
>> instance is running on.
>>
>> Why not call them VMs (vee-emm-s).
>> That is what they are.
>
> because they may not be vms and that would be very incorrect to use in
> horizon
>
> nova supprot provisioning workload called servers (rendered in horizon
> as instances) that can be physical machines (via ironic compute
> driver) or virutal machine (libvirt, vmware, zvm) or lxc containers
>
> each of these compute option are equally valid implementation fo a
> server/instance.
>
Ok. I stand corrected. Then Instance is likely the best choice in this case.
> in the past we also had nova-docker and out of three driver for hyperv
> or even a protoyp of composable hardware using intels Rackscale design
> software.
>
> https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/contributor/project-scope.html#compute-resources
>
>
> if some wanted to write a systemd machined container compute driver
> that would be a valid implementation of nova's compute api.
>
> nova is an abstraction over the compute context used to execute the
> workload but it is not just a vritual machine interface.
>
>
> that is why we use the term server because only commonality is that
> the compute context we commit to providing is somthing that
>
> is or looks lie a real machine in the same way that VPS hosting
> provider use the term to refer to thing
>
> like openvz container provisioned through cpannel.
>
>
> so it would be categorically in correct for horizon to refer to
> instances as VMs.
>
your point is well made.
It was my myopic thoughts about the recent issues I had with discussions
about the servers running the hypervisors and the servers running on the
hypervisors.

>
> horizon should either maintain the current nameing system to align to
> all the major cloud platform that use the term instance
>
> or it should adopt the official resource name which is `server`.

I can get behind either so long as there is consistency.
just my $0.02.

>
>
[snip]

--
Alvin Starr                   ||   land:  (647)478-6285
Netvel Inc.                   ||   home:  (905)513-7688
alvin@netvel.net              ||