Open Stack

+1 for the idea of using Nova flavor directly.

Why we introduced the “platform” field to indicate “vm” or “baremetel” is that magnum need to map a bay to a Heat template (which will be used to provision the bay). Currently, Magnum has three layers of mapping:

・         platform: vm or baremetal

・         os: atomic, coreos, …

・         coe: kubernetes, swarm or mesos

I think we could just replace “platform” with “flavor”, if we can populate a list of flovars for VM and another list of flavors for baremetal (We may need an additional list of flavors for container in the future for the nested container use case). Then, the new three layers would be:

・         flavor: baremetal, m1.small, m1.medium,  …

・         os: atomic, coreos, ...

・         coe: kubernetes, swarm or mesos

This approach can avoid introducing a new field in baymodel to indicate what Nova flavor already indicates.

Best regards,
Hongbin

From: Fox, Kevin M [mailto:Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov]
Sent: July-15-15 12:37 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?

Maybe somehow I missed the point, but why not just use raw Nova flavors? They already abstract away irconic vs kvm vs hyperv/etc.

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________
From: Daneyon Hansen (danehans) [danehans at cisco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 9:20 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?
All,

IMO virt_type does not properly describe bare metal deployments.  What about using the compute_driver parameter?

compute_driver = None


(StrOpt) Driver to use for controlling virtualization. Options include: libvirt.LibvirtDriver, xenapi.XenAPIDriver, fake.FakeDriver, baremetal.BareMetalDriver, vmwareapi.VMwareVCDriver, hyperv.HyperVDriver


http://docs.openstack.org/kilo/config-reference/content/list-of-compute-config-options.html
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/ironic/deploy/install-guide.html

From: Adrian Otto <adrian.otto at rackspace.com<mailto:adrian.otto at rackspace.com>>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 7:44 PM
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?

One drawback to virt_type if not seen in the context of the acceptable values, is that it should be set to values like libvirt, xen, ironic, etc. That might actually be good. Instead of using the values 'vm' or 'baremetal', we use the name of the nova virt driver, and interpret those to be vm or baremetal types. So if I set the value to 'xen', I know the nova instance type is a vm, and 'ironic' means a baremetal nova instance.

Adrian


-------- Original message --------
From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com<mailto:hongbin.lu at huawei.com>>
Date: 07/14/2015 7:20 PM (GMT-08:00)
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?
I am going to propose a third option:

3. virt_type

I have concerns about option 1 and 2, because “instance_type” and flavor was used interchangeably before [1]. If we use “instance_type” to indicate “vm” or “baremetal”, it may cause confusions.

[1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/flavor-instance-type-dedup

Best regards,
Hongbin

From: Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wkqwu at cn.ibm.com]
Sent: July-14-15 9:35 PM
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?


Hi Magnum Guys,


I want to raise this question through ML.


In this patch https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/


For some old history reason, we use platform to indicate 'vm' or 'baremetal'.
This seems not proper for that, @Adrian proposed nova_instance_type, and someone prefer other names, let me summarize as below:


1. nova_instance_type  2 votes

2. instance_type 2 votes

3. others (1 vote, but not proposed any name)


Let's try to reach the agreement ASAP. I think count the final votes winner as the proper name is the best solution(considering community diversity).


BTW, If you not proposed any better name, just vote to disagree all, I think that vote is not valid and not helpful to solve the issue.


Please help to vote for that name.


Thanks




Best Wishes,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强  Kennan）
IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing

E-mail: wkqwu at cn.ibm.com<mailto:wkqwu at cn.ibm.com>
Tel: 86-10-82451647
Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park,
        No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China 100193
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow your heart. You are miracle!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150715/79f5ab89/attachment.html>