Open Stack

On 2014/31/01 22:03, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
> So after reading the replies on this thread, it seems like I (and others advocating
> a custom scheduler) may have overthought things a bit.  The reason this route was
> suggested was because of conflicting goals for Icehouse:
>
> a) homogeneous nodes (to simplify requirements)
> b) support diverse hardware sets (to allow as many users as possible to try Tuskar)

> Option b) requires either a custom scheduler or forcing nodes to have the same attributes,
> and the answer to that question is where much of the debate lies.
I think these two goals are pretty accurate.

> However, taking a step back, maybe the real answer is:
>
> a) homogeneous nodes
> b) document. . .
>     - **unsupported** means of "demoing" Tuskar (set node attributes to match flavors, hack
>       the scheduler, etc)
Why are people calling it 'hack'? It's an additional filter to 
nova-scheduler...?

>     - our goals of supporting heterogeneous nodes for the J-release.
I wouldn't talk about J-release. I would talk about next iteration or 
next step. Nobody said that we are not able to make it in I-release.

> Does this seem reasonable to everyone?
>
> Mainn

Well +1 for a) and it's documentation.

However me and Robert, we look to have different opinions on what 
'homogeneous' means in our context. I think we should clarify that.

-- Jarda