Open Stack

It was done like that to circumvent the existing possibility DoS-like
usage requests when there are thousands of instances.

Some of the history behind that decision can be found in the spec
discussions [1].

And an easier to read spec can be found here [2].

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/386771/
[2] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ocata/approved/paginate-simple-tenant-usage.html

--diana

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:11 AM, Radomir Dopieralski
<openstack at sheep.art.pl> wrote:
> No, for some reason Nova will now always limit the number of entries it
> sends in a single response, no matter what microversion you use. If you use
> microversion of at least 2.40, it will let you request more responses, to
> get all the entries. I don't know why they did it like that.
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Rob Cresswell (rcresswe)
> <rcresswe at cisco.com> wrote:
>>
>> As I understand it, if someone configures Nova to use 2.40 via settings,
>> then it will use 2.40 for every request. This could likely break Horizon in
>> weird ways, which makes it seem risky to try and support it.
>>
>> What I don’t really understand about this FFE, is why we need to modify
>> the behaviour at all; if we keep using an old microversion (I think it
>> defaults to 2.1?) then shouldn’t behaviour stay exactly the same?
>>
>> Rob
>>
>> > On 23 Jan 2017, at 21:08, Richard Jones <r1chardj0n3s at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > [I'm on vacation, so can't look into this too deeply, sorry]
>> >
>> > I'm not sure I follow Rob's point here. Does the patch
>> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/410337 just check the version to see
>> > if it's >= 2.40 and take action appropriately? I don't see how it
>> > changes anything to force requesting 2.40 with every request? Then
>> > again, I've not been able to look into how the current clients'
>> > microversion code is implemented/broken. Is it just that *declaring*
>> > the 2.40 version in https://review.openstack.org/#/c/422642 results in
>> > all requests being forced to use that version?
>> >
>> >
>> >     Richard
>> >
>> > On 23 January 2017 at 23:10, Radomir Dopieralski
>> > <openstack at sheep.art.pl> wrote:
>> >> Yes, to do it differently we need to add the microversion support patch
>> >> that
>> >> you are working on, and make use of it, or write a patch that has
>> >> equivalent
>> >> functionality.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 6:57 PM, Rob Cresswell
>> >> <robert.cresswell at outlook.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Just a thought: With the way we currently do microversions, wouldnt
>> >>> this
>> >>> request 2.40 for every request ? There's a pretty good chance that
>> >>> would
>> >>> break things.
>> >>>
>> >>> Rob
>> >>>
>> >>> On 20 January 2017 at 00:02, Richard Jones <r1chardj0n3s at gmail.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> FFE granted for the three patches. We need to support that nova API
>> >>>> change.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On 20 January 2017 at 01:28, Radomir Dopieralski
>> >>>> <openstack at sheep.art.pl>
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I would like to request a feature freeze exception for the following
>> >>>>> patch:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/410337
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> This patch adds support for retrieving the simple tenant usages from
>> >>>>> Nova in
>> >>>>> chunks, and it is necessary for correct data given that related
>> >>>>> patches
>> >>>>> have
>> >>>>> been already merged in Nova. Without
>> >>>>> it, the data received will be truncated.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> In order to actually use that patch, however, it is necessary to set
>> >>>>> the
>> >>>>> Nova API version to at least
>> >>>>> version 3.40. For this, it's necessary to also add this patch:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://review.openstack.org/422642
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> However, that patch will not work, because of a bug in the
>> >>>>> VersionManager,
>> >>>>> which for some reason
>> >>>>> uses floating point numbers for specifying versions, and thus
>> >>>>> understands
>> >>>>> 2.40 as 2.4. To fix that, it
>> >>>>> is also necessary to merge this patch:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/410688
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> I would like to request an exception for all those three patches.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> An alternative to this would be to finish and merge the microversion
>> >>>>> support, and modify the first patch to make use of it. Then we would
>> >>>>> need
>> >>>>> exceptions for those two patches.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >>>>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> __________________________________________________________________________
>> >> 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
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>