Open Stack

On 03/16/2016 05:46 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 16 March 2016 at 09:15, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch
> <mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch>> wrote:
> 
>     Then, there were major reservations from the PTLs at the impacts in
>     terms of
>     latency, ability to reconcile and loss of control (transactions are
>     difficult, transactions
>     across services more so).
> 
> 
> Not just PTLs :-)
>  
> 
>     <snip>
>     I would favor a library, at least initially. If we cannot agree on a
>     library, it
>     is unlikely that we can get a service adopted (even if it is desirable).
> 
>     A library (along the lines of 1 or 2 above) would allow consistent
>     implementation
>     of nested quotas and user quotas. Nested quotas is currently only
>     implemented
>     in Cinder and user quota implementations vary between projects which is
>     confusing.
> 
> 
> It is worth noting that the cinder implementation has been found rather
> lacking in correctness, atomicity requirements and testing - I wouldn't
> suggest taking it as anything other than a PoC to be honest. Certainly
> it should not be cargo-culted into another project in its present state.

I think a library approach should probably start from scratch, with
lessons learned from Cinder, but not really copied code, for just that
reason.

This is hard code to get right, which is why it's various degrees of
wrong in every project in OpenStack.

A common library with it's own db tables and migration train is the only
way I can imagine this every getting accomplished given the atomicity
and two phase commit constraints of getting quota on long lived, async
created resources, with sub resources that also have quota. Definitely
think that's the nearest term path to victory.

	-Sean

-- 
Sean Dague
http://dague.net