Open Stack

> Even something like this is a lot more complicated than it sounds due to
the fact that several operations can be happening in parallel.

That's fair, but I was thinking that the 'add existing' VM is fairly
close in behavior to 'add new' VM to the group, less of course any
parallel operations happening on the VM itself.

> I think we just need to draw a line for Nova that just doesn't include this
functionality.

If that's our general direction, no problem.  I'm just thinking about
this from a user's perspective; this would be very difficult for any
administrator to use in its current form because you essentially can't
make a mistake in the group management--any mistake results in you
having to essentially delete the VM and start over, which is a pretty
major usability issue IMO, at least in terms of most production
environments.

Don't get me wrong, I think server groups have a lot of interesting
use cases (I actually would really like to use them) in their current
form and I think as a starting point, this is great.  But I think
without some of these added flexibilities, I think it would be very
challenging for any IT administrator to use them--hence why I'm
exploring adding some additional functionality; I'm even happy to help
implement this, if we can get any type of concurrence on the subject.
:-)

- Joe

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/25/2014 01:25 PM, Joe Cropper wrote:
>> I was thinking something simple such as only allowing the add operation to succeed IFF no policies are found to be in violation... and then nova wouldn't need to get into all the complexities you mention?
>
> Even something like this is a lot more complicated than it sounds due to
> the fact that several operations can be happening in parallel.  I think
> we just need to draw a line for Nova that just doesn't include this
> functionality.
>
>> And remove would be fairly straightforward as well since no constraints would need to be checked.
>
> Right, remove is straight forward, but seems a bit odd to have without
> add.  I'm not sure there's much value to it.
>
> --
> Russell Bryant
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev