Open Stack

On 17/08/18 14:09 -0500, Jay S Bryant wrote:
>
>
>On 8/17/2018 1:34 PM, Sean McGinnis wrote:
>>>Has there been a discussion on record of how use of placement by cinder
>>>would affect "standalone" cinder (or manila) initiatives where there is a
>>>desire to be able to run cinder by itself (with no-auth) or just with
>>>keystone (where OpenStack style multi-tenancy is desired)?
>>>
>>>Tom Barron (tbarron)
>>>
>>A little bit. That would be one of the pieces that needs to be done if we were
>>to adopt it.
>>
>>Just high level brainstorming, but I think we would need something like we have
>>now with using tooz where if it is configured for it, it will use etcd for
>>distributed locking. And for single node installs it just defaults to file
>>locks.
>>
>Sean and Tom,
>
>That brief discussion was in Vancouver: 
>https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/YVR-cinder-placement

Thanks, Jay.

>
>But as Sean indicated I think the long story short was that we would 
>make it so that we could use the placement service if it was available 
>but would leave the existing functionality in the case it wasn't 
>there.

I think that even standalone if I'm running a scheduler (i.e., not 
doing emberlib version of standalone) then I'm likely to want to run 
them active-active on multiple nodes and will need a solution for the 
current races.  So even standalone we face the question of do we use 
placement to solve that issue or do we introduce some coordination 
among the schedulers themselves to solve it.

-- Tom Barron (tbarron)

>
>Jay
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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