Open Stack

Are we yet at the point  in the New Year to register requests for exceptions ?

There is strong interest from CERN and Yahoo! In this feature and there are many +1s and no unaddressed -1s.

Thanks for consideration,

Tim

> Joe wrote
> ….
>
>Nova's spec deadline has passed, but I think this is a good candidate for an exception.  We will announce the process for asking for a formal spec exception shortly after new years.
>

From: Tim Bell [mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch]
Sent: 23 December 2014 19:02
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical Multitenancy

Joe,

Thanks… there seems to be good agreement on the spec and the matching implementation is well advanced with BARC so the risk is not too high.

Launching HMT with quota in Nova in the same release cycle would also provide a more complete end user experience.

For CERN, this functionality is very interesting as it allows the central cloud providers to delegate the allocation of quotas to the LHC experiments. Thus, from a central perspective, we are able to allocate N thousand cores to an experiment and delegate their resource co-ordinator to prioritise the work within the experiment. Currently, we have many manual helpdesk tickets with significant latency to adjust the quotas.

Tim

From: Joe Gordon [mailto:joe.gordon0 at gmail.com]
Sent: 23 December 2014 17:35
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical Multitenancy


On Dec 23, 2014 12:26 AM, "Tim Bell" <Tim.Bell at cern.ch<mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch>> wrote:
>
>
>
> It would be great if we can get approval for the Hierachical Quota handling in Nova too (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/129420/).

Nova's spec deadline has passed, but I think this is a good candidate for an exception.  We will announce the process for asking for a formal spec exception shortly after new years.

>
>
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> From: Morgan Fainberg [mailto:morgan.fainberg at gmail.com<mailto:morgan.fainberg at gmail.com>]
> Sent: 23 December 2014 01:22
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Hierarchical Multitenancy
>
>
>
> Hi Raildo,
>
>
>
> Thanks for putting this post together. I really appreciate all the work you guys have done (and continue to do) to get the Hierarchical Mulittenancy code into Keystone. It’s great to have the base implementation merged into Keystone for the K1 milestone. I look forward to seeing the rest of the development land during the rest of this cycle and what the other OpenStack projects build around the HMT functionality.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Morgan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> On Dec 22, 2014, at 1:49 PM, Raildo Mascena <raildom at gmail.com<mailto:raildom at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Hello folks, My team and I developed the Hierarchical Multitenancy concept for Keystone in Kilo-1 but What is Hierarchical Multitenancy? What have we implemented? What are the next steps for kilo?
>>
>> To answers these questions, I created a blog post http://raildo.me/hierarchical-multitenancy-in-openstack/
>>
>>
>>
>> Any question, I'm available.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Raildo Mascena
>>
>> Software Engineer.
>>
>> Bachelor of Computer Science.
>>
>> Distributed Systems Laboratory
>> Federal University of Campina Grande
>> Campina Grande, PB - Brazil
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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<mailto: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/20150107/16f38477/attachment.html>