[openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use platform VS others as a type?
Kai Qiang Wu
wkqwu at cn.ibm.com
Thu Jul 16 07:21:45 UTC 2015
+ 1 about server_type.
I also think it is OK.
Thanks
Best Wishes,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan）
IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing
E-mail: 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!
From: Adrian Otto <adrian.otto at rackspace.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: 07/16/2015 03:18 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
platform VS others as a type?
I’d be comfortable with server_type.
Adrian
On Jul 15, 2015, at 11:51 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau.513 at gmail.com> wrote:
After more thinking, I agree with Hongbin that instance_type might
make customer confused with flavor, what about using server_type?
Actually, nova has concept of server group, the "servers" in this
group can be vm. pm or container.
Thanks!
2015-07-16 11:58 GMT+08:00 Kai Qiang Wu <wkqwu at cn.ibm.com>:
Hi Hong Bin,
Thanks for your reply.
I think it is better to discuss the 'platform' Vs instance_type Vs
others case first.
Attach: initial patch (about the discussion):
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/200401/
My other patches all depend on above patch, if above patch can not
reach a meaningful agreement.
My following patches would be blocked by that.
Thanks
Best Wishes,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan）
IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing
E-mail: 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!
<graycol.gif>Hongbin Lu ---07/16/2015 11:47:30 AM---Kai, Sorry for
the confusion. To clarify, I was thinking how to name the field you
proposed in baymo
From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: 07/16/2015 11:47 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
platform VS others as a type?
Kai,
Sorry for the confusion. To clarify, I was thinking how to name the
field you proposed in baymodel [1]. I prefer to drop it and use the
existing field ‘flavor’ to map the Heat template.
[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/198984/6
From: Kai Qiang Wu [mailto:wkqwu at cn.ibm.com]
Sent: July-15-15 10:36 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?
Hi HongBin,
I think flavors introduces more confusion than nova_instance_type
or instance_type.
As flavors not have binding with 'vm' or 'baremetal',
Let me summary the initial question:
We have two kinds of templates for kubernetes now,
(as templates in heat not flexible like programming language, if
else etc. And separate templates are easy to maintain)
The two kinds of kubernets templates, One for boot VM, another
boot Baremetal. 'VM' or Baremetal here is just used for heat
template selection.
1> If used flavor, it is nova specific concept: take two as
example,
m1.small, or m1.middle.
m1.small < 'VM' m1.middle < 'VM'
Both m1.small and m1.middle can be used in 'VM'
environment.
So we should not use m1.small as a template identification. That's
why I think flavor not good to be used.
2> @Adrian, we have --flavor-id field for baymodel now, it would
picked up by heat-templates, and boot instances with such flavor.
3> Finally, I think instance_type is better. instance_type can be
used as heat templates identification parameter.
instance_type = 'vm', it means such templates fit for normal 'VM'
heat stack deploy
instance_type = 'baremetal', it means such templates fit for ironic
baremetal heat stack deploy.
Thanks!
Best Wishes,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan）
IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing
E-mail: 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!
<graycol.gif>Hongbin Lu ---07/16/2015 04:44:14 AM---+1 for the idea
of using Nova flavor directly. Why we introduced the “platform”
field to indicate “v
From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: 07/16/2015 04:44 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Magnum template manage use
platform VS others as a type?
+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>
Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
questions)" <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>
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>
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>
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
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
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!
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
--
Thanks,
Jay Lau (Guangya Liu)
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150716/6ccd099f/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150716/6ccd099f/attachment.gif>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list
