Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Florent Flament" <florent.flament-ext at cloudwatt.com>
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Friday, 24 January, 2014 8:07:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] bp proposal: quotas on users and projects per domain
> 
> I understand that not everyone may be interested in such feature.
> 
> On the other hand, some (maybe shallow) Openstack users may be
> interested in setting quotas on users or projects. Also, this feature
> wouldn't do any harm to the other users who wouldn't use it.
> 
> If some contributors are willing to spend some time in adding this
> feature to Openstack, is there any reason not to accept it ?

I have in general no problem with users/projects/domains/etc being quota-ed
for a business decision (and i don't work for a provider) but as part of a more
global initiative that all resource types in OpenStack can be quotaed and this
would be managed by some other service (This i think would be a difficult
service to write). 

I don't see the point in implementing this directly as a keystone feature.
As Dolph mentioned these are not resource heavy concepts that we have a practical 
need to limit. In most situations i imagine service providers who want this
have means to achieve it via the backend they use store to. 

Note that the idea of storing quota data in keystone has come up before
and has generally never gained much traction. 

Jamie

> On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 14:55 -0600, Dolph Mathews wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 9:59 AM, Florent Flament
> > <florent.flament-ext at cloudwatt.com> wrote:
> >         Hi,
> >         
> >         
> >         Although it is true that projects and users don't consume a
> >         lot of resources, I think that there may be cases where
> >         setting quotas (possibly large) may be useful.
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         For instance, a cloud provider may wish to prevent domain
> >         administrators to mistakingly create an infinite number of
> >         users and/or projects, by calling APIs in a bugging loop.
> >         
> > 
> > 
> > That sounds like it would be better solved by API rate limiting, not
> > quotas.
> >  
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         Moreover, if quotas can be disabled, I don't see any reason
> >         not to allow cloud operators to set quotas on users and/or
> >         projects if they wishes to do so for whatever marketing reason
> >         (e.g. charging more to allow more users or projects).
> >         
> > 
> > 
> > That's the shallow business decision I was alluding to, which I don't
> > think we have any reason to support in-tree.
> >  
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         Regards,
> >         
> >         Florent Flament
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         ______________________________________________________________
> >         From: "Dolph Mathews" <dolph.mathews at gmail.com>
> >         To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> >         questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >         Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 3:09:51 PM
> >         Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Keystone] bp proposal: quotas on
> >         users and projects per domain
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         ... why? It strikes me as a rather shallow business decision
> >         to limit the number of users or projects in a system, as
> >         neither are actually cost-consuming resources.
> >         
> >         
> >         On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 6:43 AM, Matthieu Huin
> >         <matthieu.huin at enovance.com> wrote:
> >                 Hello,
> >                 
> >                 I'd be interested in opinions and feedback on the
> >                 following blueprint:
> >                 https://blueprints.launchpad.net/keystone/+spec/tenants-users-quotas
> >                 
> >                 The idea is to add a mechanism preventing the creation
> >                 of users or projects once a quota per domain is met. I
> >                 believe this could be interesting for cloud providers
> >                 who delegate administrative rights under domains to
> >                 their customers.
> >                 
> >                 I'd like to hear the community's thoughts on this,
> >                 especially in terms of viability.
> >                 
> >                 Many thanks,
> >                 
> >                 Matthieu Huin
> >                 
> >                 mhu at enovance.com
> >                 http://www.enovance.com
> >                 eNovance SaS - 10 rue de la Victoire 75009 Paris -
> >                 France
> >                 
> >                 
> >                 _______________________________________________
> >                 OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >                 OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >                 http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >         OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         
> >         _______________________________________________
> >         OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >         OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >         
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>