Open Stack

Hi all,
while I was working on blueprint Pasquale addressed this issue.
In the use case explained  both features are involved
but the user defined UUID does not depend strictly on original blueprint 
but it can be a new one.
If there is no objection I could write a blueprint/specification 
regarding to last solution.
Any thought?

BR,
Angelo

On 01/10/2014 18:07, Joe Gordon wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Solly Ross <sross at redhat.com 
> <mailto:sross at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     (response inline)
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     > From: "Pasquale Porreca" <pasquale.porreca at dektech.com.au
>     <mailto:pasquale.porreca at dektech.com.au>>
>     > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     > Sent: Wednesday, October 1, 2014 11:08:50 AM
>     > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Create an instance with a
>     custom uuid
>     >
>     > Thank you for the answers.
>     >
>     > I understood the concerns about having the UUID completely user
>     defined and I
>     > also understand Nova has no interest in supporting a customized
>     algorithm to
>     > generate UUID. Anyway I may have found a solution that will
>     cover my use
>     > case and respect the standard for UUID (RFC 4122
>     > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4122.txt ) .
>     >
>     > The generation of the UUID in Nova make use of the function
>     uuid4() from the
>     > module uuid.py to have an UUID (pseudo)random, according to
>     version 4
>     > described in RFC 4122. Anyway this is not the only algorithm
>     supported in
>     > the standard (and implemented yet in uuid.py ).
>     >
>     > In particular I focused my attention on UUID version 1 and the
>     method
>     > uuid1(node=None, clock_seq=None) that allows to pass as
>     parameter a part of
>     > the UUID ( node is the field containing the last 12 hexadecimal
>     digits of
>     > the UUID).
>     >
>     > So my idea was to give the chance to the user to set uiid
>     version (1 or 4,
>     > with the latter as default) when creating a new instance and in
>     case of
>     > version 1 to pass optionally a value for parameter node .
>
>     I would think that we could just have a node parameter here, and
>     automatically
>     use version 1 if that parameter is passed (if we decided to go the
>     route
>     of changing the current UUID behavior).
>
>
> From what I gather this requested change in API is based on for your 
> blueprint 
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/pxe-boot-instance. Since 
> your blueprint is not approved yet discussing further work to improve 
> it is a bit premature.
>
>
>     >
>     > Any thoughts?
>     >
>     > On 09/30/14 14:07, Andrew Laski wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > On 09/30/2014 06:53 AM, Pasquale Porreca wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > Going back to my original question, I would like to know:
>     >
>     > 1) Is it acceptable to have the UUID passed from client side?
>     >
>     > In my opinion, no. This opens a door to issues we currently
>     don't need to
>     > deal with, and use cases I don't think Nova should support. Another
>     > possibility, which I don't like either, would be to pass in some
>     data which
>     > could influence the generation of the UUID to satisfy requirements.
>     >
>     > But there was a suggestion to look into addressing your use case
>     on the QEMU
>     > mailing list, which I think would be a better approach.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > 2) What is the correct way to do it? I started to implement this
>     feature,
>     > simply passing it as metadata with key uuid, but I feel that
>     this feature
>     > should have a reserved option rather then use metadata.
>     >
>     >
>     > On 09/25/14 17:26, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 05:23:22PM +0200, Pasquale Porreca wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     > This is correct Daniel, except that that it is done by the virtual
>     > firmware/BIOS of the virtual machine and not by the OS (not yet
>     installed at
>     > that time).
>     >
>     > This is the reason we thought about UUID: it is yet used by the
>     iPXE client
>     > to be included in Bootstrap Protocol messages, it is taken from
>     the <uuid>
>     > field in libvirt template and the <uuid> in libvirt is set by
>     OpenStack; the
>     > only missing passage is the chance to set the UUID in OpenStack
>     instead to
>     > have it randomly generated.
>     >
>     > Having another user defined tag in libvirt won't help for our
>     issue, since
>     > it won't be included in Bootstrap Protocol messages, not without
>     changes in
>     > the virtual BIOS/firmware (as you stated too) and honestly my
>     team doesn't
>     > have interest in this (neither the competence).
>     >
>     > I don't think the configdrive or metadata service would help
>     either: the OS
>     > on the instance is not yet installed at that time (the target if
>     the network
>     > boot is exactly to install the OS on the instance!), so it won't
>     be able to
>     > mount it.
>     > Ok, yes, if we're considering the DHCP client inside the iPXE BIOS
>     > blob, then I don't see any currently viable options besides UUID.
>     > There's no mechanism for passing any other data into iPXE that I
>     > am aware of, though if there is a desire todo that it could be
>     > raised on the QEMU mailing list for discussion.
>     >
>     >
>     > Regards,
>     > Daniel
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>     >
>     > --
>     > Pasquale Porreca
>     >
>     > DEK Technologies
>     > Via dei Castelli Romani, 22
>     > 00040 Pomezia (Roma)
>     >
>     > Mobile +39 3394823805 <tel:%2B39%203394823805>
>     > Skype paskporr
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>     >
>
>     Best Regards,
>     Solly Ross
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141005/2d8ef77e/attachment.html>