Open Stack

On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Eric Windisch <eric at cloudscaling.com>wrote:

> >
> > It is difficult to do that using the current configuration schema,
> because there are so many different options that have to be replicated for
> each broker. So you end up with foo_exchange, foo_host, foo_port, etc. for
> every service that you want to connect to.
> Right, so I suggest we either don't allow access to the control_exchange
> via the API at all, or we only do so at the connection-level.
>

Limiting it to the connection level doesn't help with the configuration
issue. Julien's suggestion to switch to URLs does, because we only have to
define one option for each kind of connection.


>
> >  For ceilometer we just said that all of the exchanges have to be on the
> same broker.
> Again, which kills the ability to shard. This shouldn't be a long-standing
> requirement.
>

It won't be, but there wasn't a way to pass the rest of the parameters in
to the existing API. That's part of what we're working on fixing. :-)


>
>
>
> I'm seriously considering a push to make each project using ZeroMQ run on
> a separate broker by default due to the security implications.
> > For cells, I think they reproduce the settings in the database.
>
>
>
> Cells keeps settings in their database, but they're not directly mappable
> to CONF settings.
>

We may need to update that.

Doug


>
> Regards,
> Eric Windisch
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130429/4f330904/attachment.html>