Open Stack

Le 06/11/2015 07:08, Tony Breeds a écrit :
> Hello all,
>      I came across [1] which is notionally an ironic bug in that horizon presents
> VM operations (like suspend) to users.  Clearly these options don't make sense
> to ironic which can be confusing.
>
> There is a horizon fix that just disables migrate/suspened and other functaions
> if the operator sets a flag say ironic is present.  Clealy this is sub optimal
> for a mixed hv environment.
>
> The data needed (hpervisor type) is currently avilable only to admins, a quick
> hack to remove this policy restriction is functional.
>
> There are a few ways to solve this.
>
>   1. Change the default from "rule:admin_api" to "" (for
>      os_compute_api:os-extended-server-attributes and
>      os_compute_api:os-hypervisors), and set a list of values we're
>      comfortbale exposing the user (hypervisor_type and
>      hypervisor_hostname).  So a user can get the hypervisor_name as part of
>      the instance deatils and get the hypervisor_type from the
>      os-hypervisors.  This would work for horizon but increases the API load
>      on nova and kinda implies that horizon would have to cache the data and
>      open-code assumptions that hypervisor_type can/can't do action $x
>
>   2. Include the hypervisor_type with the instance data.  This would place the
>      burdon on nova.  It makes the looking up instance details slightly more
>      complex but doesn't result in additional API queries, nor caching
>      overhead in horizon.  This has the same opencoding issues as Option 1.
>
>   3. Define a service user and have horizon look up the hypervisors details via
>      that role.  Has all the drawbacks as option 1 and I'm struggling to
>      think of many benefits.
>
>   4. Create a capabilitioes API of some description, that can be queried so that
>      consumers (horizon) can known
>
>   5. Some other way for users to know what kind of hypervisor they're on, Perhaps
>      there is an established image property that would work here?
>
> If we're okay with exposing the hypervisor_type to users, then #2 is pretty
> quick and easy, and could be done in Mitaka.  Option 4 is probably the best
> long term solution but I think is best done in 'N' as it needs lots of
> discussion.

I'm pretty opposed to giving hypervisor details to end-users for many 
reasons (security flaw, cloud abstractional model and API not being a 
discovery tool are my first top things coming in mind).

I'd rather prefer to see Horizon as an admin able to get the specific 
bits about the driver and only show to the user what the driver can support.

That's also IMHO a bit tied to the Hypervisor Support Matrix [1] and 
from a better and more maintenable standpoint, the Feature 
Classification effort [2] because it would ensure that the 
'capabilities' API that you mention is accurate and up-to-date.

-Sylvain

[1] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/support-matrix.html
[2] 
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/215664/4/doc/source/feature_classification.rst,cm
> Yours Tony.
>
> [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1483639
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20151106/a40b0c48/attachment.html>