Open Stack

On 10/02/2018 11:09 AM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 11:40 AM Eric Fried <openstack at fried.cc> wrote:
> 
>     > What Eric is proposing (and Julia and I seem to be in favor of), is
>     > nearly the same as your proposal. The single difference is that these
>     > config templates or deploy templates or whatever could *also* require
>     > certain traits, and the scheduler would use that information to pick a
>     > node. While this does put some scheduling information into the config
>     > template, it also means that we can remove some of the flavor
>     explosion
>     > *and* mostly separate scheduling from configuration.
>     >
>     > So, you'd have a list of traits on a flavor:
>     >
>     > required=HW_CPU_X86_VMX,HW_NIC_ACCEL_IPSEC
>     >
>     > And you would also have a list of traits in the deploy template:
>     >
>     > {"traits": {"required": ["STORAGE_HARDWARE_RAID"]}, "config":
>     <RAID blob>}
>     >
>     > This allows for making flavors that are reasonably flexible
>     (instead of
>     > two flavors that do VMX and IPSEC acceleration, one of which does
>     RAID).
>     > It also allows users to specify a desired configuration without also
>     > needing to know how to correctly choose a flavor that can handle that
>     > configuration.
>     >
>     > I think it makes a lot of sense, doesn't impose more work on
>     users, and
>     > can reduce the number of flavors operators need to manage.
>     >
>     > Does that make sense?
> 
>     This is in fact exactly what Jay proposed. And both Julia and I are in
>     favor of it as an ideal long-term solution. Where Julia and I deviated
>     from Jay's point of view was in our desire to use "the hack" in the
>     short term so we can satisfy the majority of use cases right away
>     without having to wait for that ideal solution to materialize.
> 
> 
> Ah, good point, I had missed that initially. Thanks. Let's do that.
> 
> So if we all agree Jay's proposal is the right thing to do, is there any
> reason to start working on a short-term hack instead of putting those
> efforts into the better solution? I don't see why we couldn't get that
> done in one cycle, if we're all in agreement on it.

It takes more than agreement, though. It takes resources. I may have
misunderstood a major theme of the PTG, but I think the Nova team is
pretty overextended already. Even assuming authorship by wicked smaaht
folks such as yourself, the spec and code reviews will require a
nontrivial investment from Nova cores. The result would likely be
de-/re-prioritization of things we just got done agreeing to work on. If
that's The Right Thing, so be it. But we can't just say we're going to
move forward with something of this magnitude without sacrificing
something else.

(Note that the above opinion is based on the assumption that the hacky
way will require *much* less spec/code/review bandwidth to accomplish.
If that's not true, then I totally agree with you that we should spend
our time working on the right solution.)

> 
> // jim
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>