Open Stack

On Thu, Oct 16 2014, Jim Mankovich wrote:

> This structure would provide the ability for a consumer to do a ceilometer
> resource list using the Ironic Node ID as the Resource ID to get all the sensors
> in a given platform.   The consumer would then then iterate over each of the
> sensors to get the samples it wanted.   In order to retain the information as to
> who provide the sensors, I would like to propose that a standard
> "sensor_provider" field be added to the resource_metadata for every sensor where
> the "sensor_provider" field would have a string value indicating the driver that
> provided the sensor information.     This is where the string "ipmi", or a
> vendor specific string would be specified.
>
> I understand that this proposed change is not backward compatible with the
> existing naming, but I don't really see a good solution that would retain
> backward compatibility.

I think it's a good idea to drop that suffix in the resource id, as long
as we're sure a node can't have several IPMI sources. :)

-- 
Julien Danjou
-- Free Software hacker
-- http://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 818 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141016/a2b6a4c8/attachment.pgp>