Open Stack

We are in the same boat. Can't get rid of ephemeral for it's speed, and
independence. I get it, but it makes management of all these tiny pools a
scheduling and capacity nightmare.

Warren @ Walmart

On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Ned Rhudy (BLOOMBERG/ 731 LEX) <
erhudy at bloomberg.net> wrote:

> The subject says it all - does anyone know of a method by which quota can
> be enforced on storage provisioned via Nova rather than Cinder? Googling
> around appears to indicate that this is not possible out of the box (e.g.,
> https://ask.openstack.org/en/question/8518/disk-quota-for-projects/).
>
> The rationale is we offer two types of storage, RBD that goes via Cinder
> and LVM that goes directly via the libvirt driver in Nova. Users know they
> can escape the constraints of their volume quotas by using the LVM-backed
> instances, which were designed to provide a fast-but-unreliable RAID
> 0-backed alternative to slower-but-reliable RBD volumes. Eventually users
> will hit their max quota in some other dimension (CPU or memory), but we'd
> like to be able to limit based directly on how much local storage is used
> in a tenancy.
>
> Does anyone have a solution they've already built to handle this scenario?
> We have a few ideas already for things we could do, but maybe somebody's
> already come up with something. (Social engineering on our user base by
> occasionally destroying a random RAID 0 to remind people of their unsafety,
> while tempting, is probably not a viable candidate solution.)
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-operators mailing list
> OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160217/3f5f019b/attachment.html>