Open Stack

Hi, Mike

I'm not sure we really don't need any change about this feature. At least,
some end users I faced to think there should be changed....

IMHO, there is a main problem that some users whom I faced to can't
understand: What's the purpose that admin reduce quota lowner than existing
usage? Limit user to can't create any resources any more? But why reduce
quota just equal the current usage, it has same function. Make user to
delete their resources lower than the new limit line? It's weak if user
don't want to do that deletion and also bring some confusion to other users
that I have mentioned.

I understood there may be 100 reasons to show me why admin can reduce the
quota lower than usage, and I don't want to object them too. But I hope
this change can bring some new usage to update quota: 1. When admin use
client(could be third party) to update the quota limit, they should check
quota usage first as winston mentioned, if they don't or forget, anyway,
they will change failed if quota is lower than usage, since we give the
ability to cinder it will stop them to do that thing and make admin back to
check quota usage. 2. If admin know what they are doing and just need to
reduce the limit lower for some reason, fine, take the option argument
'--force' or '--skip_validation' to update the quota.

In personally, I felt this routine may be more improvement and little
confusion with it. I knew Eric said that of course we can implement this
purpose by using current APIs, it's a alternatives, but it depends on the
application which is top on cinder I think, and is hard to have consistent.

2015-07-11 7:24 GMT+08:00 Mike Perez <thingee at gmail.com>:

> On 12:30 Jul 10, hao wang wrote:
> > Cinder now doesn't check the existing resource when user lower the quota.
> > It's reasonable for admin can adjust the quota limit to lower level than
> > current usage.
> > But it also bring confusion that I have received to end user, they saw
> the
> > current usage
> > was more than limit, but they can't create resources any more.
> >
> > So there have been 'bug' reported[1] and code patch[2] committed, I knew
> it
> > may be
> > inappropriate as 'bug fix', but just want to optimize this API of
> updating
> > quota.
> >
> > We are proposing to add an option argument which is named 'force' in
> > request body.
> > Of course the default value is True that means admin can adjust the quota
> > lower then
> > current usage as same as what we did now. When the force is False, that
> > will occur
> > a Validation and return 400 Bad Request if the update value is lower than
> > current usage.
> >
> > I wonder to know folks' opinions and suggestions about this change to see
> > if this is value to merge this patch.
>
> Based on the feedback received in the bug and review, it seems like there
> is
> a clear consensus that people don't want this, even if it can be bypassed
> with
> a force option.
>
> --
> Mike Perez
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 

Best Wishes For You!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150713/29da0c27/attachment.html>