Open Stack

On 3/27/2017 9:59 AM, Duncan Thomas wrote:
> On 27 March 2017 at 14:20, 王玺源 <wangxiyuan1007 at gmail.com
> <mailto:wangxiyuan1007 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think the reason is quite simple:
>     1. Some users don't want to use key/value pairs to tag volums. They
>     just need some simple strings.
>
>
> ...and some do. We can hide this in the client and just save tags under
> a metadata item called 'tags', with no API changes needed on the cinder
> side and backwards compatability on the client.
>
>
>     2. Metadata must be shorter than 255. If users don't need keys, use
>     tag here can save some spaces.
>
>
> How many / long tags are you considering supporting?
>
>
>     3. Easy for quick searching or filter. Users don't need to know
>     what' the key related to the value.
>
>
> The client can hide all this, so it is not really a justification
>
>
>     4. For Web App, it should be a basic function[1]
>
>
> Web standards are not really standards. You can find a million things
> that apps 'should' do. They're usually contradictory.
>
>
>
>
>     [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)
>     <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_(metadata)>
>
>
>     2017-03-27 19:49 GMT+08:00 Sean McGinnis <sean.mcginnis at gmx.com>:
>
>         On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 03:13:59PM +0800, 王玺源 wrote:
>         > Hi cinder team:
>         >
>         >     I want to know what's your thought about adding tags for volumes.
>         >
>         >     Now Many resources, like Nova instances, Glance images, Neutron
>         > networks and so on, all support tagging. And some of our cloud customers
>         > want this feature in Cinder as well. It's useful for auditing, billing for
>         > could admin, it can let admin and users filter resources by tag, it can let
>         > users categorize resources for different usage or just remarks something.
>         >
>         >     Actually there is a related spec in Cinder 2 years ago, but
>         > unfortunately it was not accepted and was abandoned :
>         > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99305/
>         <https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99305/>
>         >
>         >     Can we bring it up and revisit it a second time now? What's cinder
>         > team's idea?  Can you give me some advice that if we can do it or not?
>
>         Can you give any reason why the existing metadata mechanism does
>         not or will
>         not work for them? There was some discussion in that spec
>         explaining why it
>         was rejected at the time. I don't think anything has changed
>         since then that
>         would change what was said there.
>
>         >
>         >
>         > Thanks!
>         >
>         > Wangxiyuan
>
>         >
>         __________________________________________________________________________
>         > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>         > Unsubscribe:
>         OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>         <http://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>         >
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <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://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <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://OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>     <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Duncan Thomas
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Duncan, which client are you referring to? python-cinderclient? Or are 
you suggesting duplicating that client-side logic in every client 
library available in the ecosystem.

I brought up the same questions about using metadata when we added 
server tags support to nova, and it's just too heavy weight in this case 
when all you want is a dumb simple little tag.

The nova spec discusses metadata as an alternative if you're interested:

https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/newton/implemented/tag-instances.html

-- 

Thanks,

Matt