[Openstack] [openstack-dev] Discussion about where to put database for bare-metal provisioning (review 10726)
Michael J Fork
mjfork at us.ibm.com
Mon Aug 27 21:45:29 UTC 2012
VTJ NOTSU Arata <notsu at virtualtech.jp> wrote on 08/27/2012 05:19:40 PM:
> From: VTJ NOTSU Arata <notsu at virtualtech.jp>
> To: Michael J Fork/Rochester/IBM at IBMUS,
> Cc: David Kang <dkang at isi.edu>, OpenStack Development Mailing List
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>, openstack-bounces
> +mjfork=us.ibm.com at lists.launchpad.net,
> "openstack at lists.launchpad.net (openstack at lists.launchpad.net)"
> <openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> Date: 08/27/2012 05:19 PM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [openstack-dev] Discussion about where to
> put database for bare-metal provisioning (review 10726)
>
> Hello all,
>
> It seems that the requirement for keys of HostManager.service_state
> is just to be unique;
> these do not have to be valid hostnames or queues (Already, existingcode
casts
> messages to <topic>.<service-hostname>. Michael, doesn't it?).
Looking at line 203 in nova/scheduler/filter_scheduler.py, the target host
in the cast call is weighted_host.host_state.host and not a service host.
(My guess is this will likely require a fair number of changes in the
scheduler area to change cast calls to target a service host instead of a
compute node)
> So, I tried
> '<host>/<bm_node_id>' as 'host' of capabilities. Then,
> HostManager.service_state is:
> { <host>/<bm_node_id> : { <service> : { cap k : v }}}.
> So far, it works fine. How about this way?
I will defer to Vish here, but seems like a reasonable solution.
> I paste relevant code in the bottom of this mail just to make sure.
> NOTE: I added a new column 'nodename' to compute_nodes to store
bm_node_id,
> but storing it in 'hypervisor_hostname' may be a right solution.
Again, I will defer to Vish, but seems like using the existing
"hypervisor_hostname" would be correct (otherwise I have no idea what that
field would have been intended for).
> (The whole code is in our github(NTTdocomo-openstack/nova, branch
> 'multinode'),
> multiple resource_trackers are also implemented.)
>
> Thanks,
> Arata
>
>
> diff --git a/nova/scheduler/host_manager.py
b/nova/scheduler/host_manager.py
> index 33ba2c1..567729f 100644
> --- a/nova/scheduler/host_manager.py
> +++ b/nova/scheduler/host_manager.py
> @@ -98,9 +98,10 @@ class HostState(object):
> previously used and lock down access.
> """
>
> - def __init__(self, host, topic, capabilities=None, service=None):
> + def __init__(self, host, topic, capabilities=None,
> service=None, nodename=None):
> self.host = host
> self.topic = topic
> + self.nodename = nodename
>
> # Read-only capability dicts
>
> @@ -175,8 +176,8 @@ class HostState(object):
> return True
>
> def __repr__(self):
> - return ("host '%s': free_ram_mb:%s free_disk_mb:%s" %
> - (self.host, self.free_ram_mb, self.free_disk_mb))
> + return ("host '%s' / nodename '%s': free_ram_mb:%s
free_disk_mb:%s" %
> + (self.host, self.nodename, self.free_ram_mb,
> self.free_disk_mb))
>
>
> class HostManager(object):
> @@ -268,11 +269,16 @@ class HostManager(object):
> LOG.warn(_("No service for compute ID %s") % compute
['id'])
> continue
> host = service['host']
> - capabilities = self.service_states.get(host, None)
> + if compute['nodename']:
> + host_node = '%s/%s' % (host, compute['nodename'])
> + else:
> + host_node = host
> + capabilities = self.service_states.get(host_node, None)
> host_state = self.host_state_cls(host, topic,
> capabilities=capabilities,
> - service=dict(service.iteritems()))
> + service=dict(service.iteritems()),
> + nodename=compute['nodename'])
> host_state.update_from_compute_node(compute)
> - host_state_map[host] = host_state
> + host_state_map[host_node] = host_state
>
> return host_state_map
>
> diff --git a/nova/virt/baremetal/driver.py
b/nova/virt/baremetal/driver.py
> index 087d1b6..dbcfbde 100644
> --- a/nova/virt/baremetal/driver.py
> +++ b/nova/virt/baremetal/driver.py
> (skip...)
> + def _create_node_cap(self, node):
> + dic = self._node_resources(node)
> + dic['host'] = '%s/%s' % (FLAGS.host, node['id'])
> + dic['cpu_arch'] = self._extra_specs.get('cpu_arch')
> + dic['instance_type_extra_specs'] = self._extra_specs
> + dic['supported_instances'] = self._supported_instances
> + # TODO: put node's extra specs
> + return dic
>
> def get_host_stats(self, refresh=False):
> - return self._get_host_stats()
> + caps = []
> + context = nova_context.get_admin_context()
> + nodes = bmdb.bm_node_get_all(context,
> + service_host=FLAGS.host)
> + for node in nodes:
> + node_cap = self._create_node_cap(node)
> + caps.append(node_cap)
> + return caps
>
>
> (2012/08/28 5:55), Michael J Fork wrote:
> > openstack-bounces+mjfork=us.ibm.com at lists.launchpad.net wrote on
> 08/27/2012 02:58:56 PM:
> >
> > > From: David Kang <dkang at isi.edu>
> > > To: Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda at gmail.com>,
> > > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-
> > > dev at lists.openstack.org>, "openstack at lists.launchpad.net \
> > > (openstack at lists.launchpad.net\)" <openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
> > > Date: 08/27/2012 03:06 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Openstack] [openstack-dev] Discussion about where to
> > > put database for bare-metal provisioning (review 10726)
> > > Sent by: openstack-bounces+mjfork=us.ibm.com at lists.launchpad.net
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Vish,
> > >
> > > I think I understand your idea.
> > > One service entry with multiple bare-metal compute_node entries are
> > > registered at the start of bare-metal nova-compute.
> > > 'hypervisor_hostname' must be different for each bare-metal machine,
> > > such as 'bare-metal-0001.xxx.com', 'bare-metal-0002.xxx.com', etc.)
> > > But their IP addresses must be the IP address of bare-metal nova-
> > > compute, such that an instance is casted
> > > not to bare-metal machine directly but to bare-metal nova-compute.
> >
> > I believe the change here is to cast out the message to the
> <topic>.<service-hostname>. Existing code sends it to the
> compute_node hostname (see line 202 of nova/scheduler/
> filter_scheduler.py, specifically
> host=weighted_host.host_state.host). Changing that to cast to the
> service hostname would send the message to the bare-metal proxy node
> and should not have an effect on current deployments since the
> service hostname and the host_state.host would always be equal.
> This model will also let you keep the bare-metal compute node IP in
> the compute node table.
> >
> > > One extension we need to do at the scheduler side is using (host,
> > > hypervisor_hostname) instead of (host) only in host_manager.py.
> > > 'HostManager.service_state' is { <host> : { <service > : { cap k :
v }}}.
> > > It needs to be changed to { <host> : { <service> : {
> > > <hypervisor_name> : { cap k : v }}}}.
> > > Most functions of HostState need to be changed to use (host,
> > > hypervisor_name) pair to identify a compute node.
> >
> > Would an alternative here be to change the top level "host" to be
> the hypervisor_hostname and enforce uniqueness?
> >
> > > Are we on the same page, now?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > Hi David,
> > > >
> > > > I just checked out the code more extensively and I don't see why
you
> > > > need to create a new service entry for each compute_node entry.
The
> > > > code in host_manager to get all host states explicitly gets all
> > > > compute_node entries. I don't see any reason why multiple
compute_node
> > > > entries can't share the same service. I don't see any place in the
> > > > scheduler that is grabbing records by "service" instead of by
"compute
> > > > node", but if there is one that I missed, it should be fairly easy
to
> > > > change it.
> > > >
> > > > The compute_node record is created in the
compute/resource_tracker.py
> > > > as of a recent commit, so I think the path forward would be to
make
> > > > sure that one of the records is created for each bare metal node
by
> > > > the bare metal compute, perhaps by having multiple
resource_trackers.
> > > >
> > > > Vish
> > > >
> > > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 9:40 AM, David Kang <dkang at isi.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Vish,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I don't understand your statement fully.
> > > > > Unless we use different hostnames, (hostname,
hypervisor_hostname)
> > > > > must be the
> > > > > same for all bare-metal nodes under a bare-metal nova-compute.
> > > > >
> > > > > Could you elaborate the following statement a little bit more?
> > > > >
> > > > >> You would just have to use a little more than hostname. Perhaps
> > > > >> (hostname, hypervisor_hostname) could be used to update the
entry?
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >> I would investigate changing the capabilities to key off of
> > > > >> something
> > > > >> other than hostname. It looks from the table structure like
> > > > >> compute_nodes could be have a many-to-one relationship with
> > > > >> services.
> > > > >> You would just have to use a little more than hostname. Perhaps
> > > > >> (hostname, hypervisor_hostname) could be used to update the
entry?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Vish
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:23 AM, David Kang <dkang at isi.edu> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Vish,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I've tested your code and did more testing.
> > > > >>> There are a couple of problems.
> > > > >>> 1. host name should be unique. If not, any repetitive updates
of
> > > > >>> new
> > > > >>> capabilities with the same host name are simply overwritten.
> > > > >>> 2. We cannot generate arbitrary host names on the fly.
> > > > >>> The scheduler (I tested filter scheduler) gets host names
from
> > > > >>> db.
> > > > >>> So, if a host name is not in the 'services' table, it is not
> > > > >>> considered by the scheduler at all.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> So, to make your suggestions possible, nova-compute should
> > > > >>> register
> > > > >>> N different host names in 'services' table,
> > > > >>> and N corresponding entries in 'compute_nodes' table.
> > > > >>> Here is an example:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> mysql> select id, host, binary, topic, report_count, disabled,
> > > > >>> availability_zone from services;
> > > > >>> +----+-------------+----------------+-----------
> > > +--------------+----------+-------------------+
> > > > >>> | id | host | binary | topic | report_count | disabled |
> > > > >>> | availability_zone |
> > > > >>> +----+-------------+----------------+-----------
> > > +--------------+----------+-------------------+
> > > > >>> | 1 | bespin101 | nova-scheduler | scheduler | 17145 | 0 |
nova |
> > > > >>> | 2 | bespin101 | nova-network | network | 16819 | 0 | nova |
> > > > >>> | 3 | bespin101-0 | nova-compute | compute | 16405 | 0 | nova
|
> > > > >>> | 4 | bespin101-1 | nova-compute | compute | 1 | 0 | nova |
> > > > >>> +----+-------------+----------------+-----------
> > > +--------------+----------+-------------------+
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> mysql> select id, service_id, hypervisor_hostname from
> > > > >>> compute_nodes;
> > > > >>> +----+------------+------------------------+
> > > > >>> | id | service_id | hypervisor_hostname |
> > > > >>> +----+------------+------------------------+
> > > > >>> | 1 | 3 | bespin101.east.isi.edu |
> > > > >>> | 2 | 4 | bespin101.east.isi.edu |
> > > > >>> +----+------------+------------------------+
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Then, nova db (compute_nodes table) has entries of all
bare-metal
> > > > >>> nodes.
> > > > >>> What do you think of this approach.
> > > > >>> Do you have any better approach?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > >>> David
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>>> To elaborate, something the below. I'm not absolutely sure
you
> > > > >>>> need
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> be able to set service_name and host, but this gives you the
> > > > >>>> option
> > > > >>>> to
> > > > >>>> do so if needed.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> iff --git a/nova/manager.py b/nova/manager.py
> > > > >>>> index c6711aa..c0f4669 100644
> > > > >>>> --- a/nova/manager.py
> > > > >>>> +++ b/nova/manager.py
> > > > >>>> @@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ class SchedulerDependentManager(Manager):
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> def update_service_capabilities(self, capabilities):
> > > > >>>> """Remember these capabilities to send on next periodic
> > > > >>>> update."""
> > > > >>>> + if not isinstance(capabilities, list):
> > > > >>>> + capabilities = [capabilities]
> > > > >>>> self.last_capabilities = capabilities
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> @periodic_task
> > > > >>>> @@ -224,5 +226,8 @@ class SchedulerDependentManager(Manager):
> > > > >>>> """Pass data back to the scheduler at a periodic interval."""
> > > > >>>> if self.last_capabilities:
> > > > >>>> LOG.debug(_('Notifying Schedulers of capabilities ...'))
> > > > >>>> - self.scheduler_rpcapi.update_service_capabilities(context,
> > > > >>>> - self.service_name, self.host, self.last_capabilities)
> > > > >>>> + for capability_item in self.last_capabilities:
> > > > >>>> + name = capability_item.get('service_name',
self.service_name)
> > > > >>>> + host = capability_item.get('host', self.host)
> > > > >>>> + self.scheduler_rpcapi.update_service_capabilities(context,
> > > > >>>> + name, host, capability_item)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:28 PM, David Kang <dkang at isi.edu>
wrote:
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Hi Vish,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> We are trying to change our code according to your comment.
> > > > >>>>> I want to ask a question.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> a) modify driver.get_host_stats to be able to return a
list
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > >>>>>>>> stats instead of just one. Report the whole list back to
the
> > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler. We could modify the receiving end to accept a
list
> > > > >>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>> well
> > > > >>>>>>>> or just make multiple calls to
> > > > >>>>>>>> self.update_service_capabilities(capabilities)
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Modifying driver.get_host_stats to return a list of host
stats
> > > > >>>>> is
> > > > >>>>> easy.
> > > > >>>>> Calling muliple calls to
> > > > >>>>> self.update_service_capabilities(capabilities) doesn't seem
to
> > > > >>>>> work,
> > > > >>>>> because 'capabilities' is overwritten each time.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Modifying the receiving end to accept a list seems to be
easy.
> > > > >>>>> However, 'capabilities' is assumed to be dictionary by all
other
> > > > >>>>> scheduler routines,
> > > > >>>>> it looks like that we have to change all of them to handle
> > > > >>>>> 'capability' as a list of dictionary.
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> If my understanding is correct, it would affect many parts
of
> > > > >>>>> the
> > > > >>>>> scheduler.
> > > > >>>>> Is it what you recommended?
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>> David
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > >>>>>> This was an immediate goal, the bare-metal nova-compute
node
> > > > >>>>>> could
> > > > >>>>>> keep an internal database, but report capabilities through
nova
> > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>> common way with the changes below. Then the scheduler
wouldn't
> > > > >>>>>> need
> > > > >>>>>> access to the bare metal database at all.
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:23 PM, David Kang <dkang at isi.edu>
wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi Vish,
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Is this discussion for long-term goal or for this Folsom
> > > > >>>>>>> release?
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> We still believe that bare-metal database is needed
> > > > >>>>>>> because there is not an automated way how bare-metal nodes
> > > > >>>>>>> report
> > > > >>>>>>> their capabilities
> > > > >>>>>>> to their bare-metal nova-compute node.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > >>>>>>> David
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I am interested in finding a solution that enables
bare-metal
> > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > >>>>>>>> virtualized requests to be serviced through the same
> > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > >>>>>>>> where
> > > > >>>>>>>> the compute_nodes table has a full view of schedulable
> > > > >>>>>>>> resources.
> > > > >>>>>>>> This
> > > > >>>>>>>> would seem to simplify the end-to-end flow while opening
up
> > > > >>>>>>>> some
> > > > >>>>>>>> additional use cases (e.g. dynamic allocation of a node
from
> > > > >>>>>>>> bare-metal to hypervisor and back).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> One approach would be to have a proxy running a single
> > > > >>>>>>>> nova-compute
> > > > >>>>>>>> daemon fronting the bare-metal nodes . That nova-compute
> > > > >>>>>>>> daemon
> > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > >>>>>>>> report up many HostState objects (1 per bare-metal node)
to
> > > > >>>>>>>> become
> > > > >>>>>>>> entries in the compute_nodes table and accessible through
the
> > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler HostManager object.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> The HostState object would set cpu_info, vcpus, member_mb
and
> > > > >>>>>>>> local_gb
> > > > >>>>>>>> values to be used for scheduling with the hypervisor_host
> > > > >>>>>>>> field
> > > > >>>>>>>> holding the bare-metal machine address (e.g. for IPMI
based
> > > > >>>>>>>> commands)
> > > > >>>>>>>> and hypervisor_type = NONE. The bare-metal Flavors are
> > > > >>>>>>>> created
> > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > >>>>>>>> an
> > > > >>>>>>>> extra_spec of hypervisor_type= NONE and the corresponding
> > > > >>>>>>>> compute_capabilities_filter would reduce the available
hosts
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> those
> > > > >>>>>>>> bare_metal nodes. The scheduler would need to understand
that
> > > > >>>>>>>> hypervisor_type = NONE means you need an exact fit (or
> > > > >>>>>>>> best-fit)
> > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > >>>>>>>> vs weighting them (perhaps through the multi-scheduler).
The
> > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > >>>>>>>> would cast out the message to the
<topic>.<service-hostname>
> > > > >>>>>>>> (code
> > > > >>>>>>>> today uses the HostState hostname), with the compute
driver
> > > > >>>>>>>> having
> > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > >>>>>>>> understand if it must be serviced elsewhere (but does not
> > > > >>>>>>>> break
> > > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > > >>>>>>>> existing implementations since it is 1 to 1).
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Does this solution seem workable? Anything I missed?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> The bare metal driver already is proxying for the other
nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > >>>>>>>> sounds like we need a couple of things to make this
happen:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> a) modify driver.get_host_stats to be able to return a
list
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > >>>>>>>> stats instead of just one. Report the whole list back to
the
> > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler. We could modify the receiving end to accept a
list
> > > > >>>>>>>> as
> > > > >>>>>>>> well
> > > > >>>>>>>> or just make multiple calls to
> > > > >>>>>>>> self.update_service_capabilities(capabilities)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> b) make a few minor changes to the scheduler to make sure
> > > > >>>>>>>> filtering
> > > > >>>>>>>> still works. Note the changes here may be very helpful:
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/10327
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> c) we have to make sure that instances launched on those
> > > > >>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > >>>>>>>> take
> > > > >>>>>>>> up
> > > > >>>>>>>> the entire host state somehow. We could probably do this
by
> > > > >>>>>>>> making
> > > > >>>>>>>> sure that the instance_type ram, mb, gb etc. matches what
the
> > > > >>>>>>>> node
> > > > >>>>>>>> has, but we may want a new boolean field "used" if those
> > > > >>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > >>>>>>>> sufficient.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> I This approach seems pretty good. We could potentially
get
> > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> shared bare_metal_node table. I guess the only other
concern
> > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > >>>>>>>> how
> > > > >>>>>>>> you populate the capabilities that the bare metal nodes
are
> > > > >>>>>>>> reporting.
> > > > >>>>>>>> I guess an api extension that rpcs to a baremetal node to
add
> > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > >>>>>>>> node. Maybe someday this could be autogenerated by the
bare
> > > > >>>>>>>> metal
> > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > >>>>>>>> looking in its arp table for dhcp requests! :)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Vish
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > >>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > > > >>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-dev
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > >>>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > > > >>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-dev
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > >>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > > > >>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-dev
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > >>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > > > >>>>>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > >>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > > > >>>>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > Post to : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > >
> >
> > Michael
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Michael Fork
> > Cloud Architect, Emerging Solutions
> > IBM Systems & Technology Group
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > Post to : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
Michael
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Fork
Cloud Architect, Emerging Solutions
IBM Systems & Technology Group
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120827/58fe6867/attachment.html>
More information about the Openstack
mailing list