Open Stack

Sounds pretty good Vish.

Since we are mostly deployers, and the ones who are gonna try the new 
code from day zero, whats good for Sandy, its good for us.

Alejandro.

On 02/01/2012 06:57 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. It is good to get input from one of the 
> largest openstack installs! So it sounds like the existing code is 
> pretty broken. Based on this feedback I would like to propose the 
> following:
>
> 1) cut out zones code
>   (meaning merge the existing branch)
>
> 2) grant an FFe for the new rpc based zone code as long is it can be 
> merged without heavily modifying core.
>
> This means:
> a) it should be deployable with the feature disabled
> b) it should only include minor modifications to core components
> c) if a major change is needed to distributed_scheduler (for example), 
> consider leaving the existing version in, and copying the code to a 
> new file (distributed_scheduler_v2) and doing the modifications there. 
>  That way we can minimize chances of breakage
> d) it needs to be merged by the 15th
>
>
> Does that seem reasonable?
>
> Vish
>
> On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Alejandro Comisario wrote:
>
>> Hi guys.
>> Its true that we are trying to make multizones work, actually we did, 
>> but we get into an instance were listing all vms from the parent zone 
>> ( where is has to go thru all the child zones ) is buggy ( if not 
>> impossible by now ).
>> So, if there is a new zone architecture that actually works ( we want 
>> to stop using our own deployer to do that ) or has a chance to be 
>> fully working when 2012-1 is out, (we would prefer not to wait till 
>> Folsom) we are totally into it ! since by now, we were actually 
>> waiting for this new Zones code to come out to try again.
>>
>> Alejandro.
>>
>> On 02/01/2012 06:17 PM, Nathanael Burton wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> On Feb 1, 2012 4:13 PM, "Vishvananda Ishaya" <vishvananda at gmail.com 
>>> <mailto:vishvananda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I would prefer that if it can be done super-super fast. :)
>>>
>>>     Vish
>>>
>>>     On Feb 1, 2012, at 1:04 PM, Chris Behrens wrote:
>>>
>>>     > I wonder if we can use some of the architecture of the new
>>>     code and move the current implementation to that model.  It'd
>>>     preserve the existing functionality, set us up for the new
>>>     implementation, and fits in with 'cleanup' for E4, etc.
>>>     >
>>>     > On Feb 1, 2012, at 2:41 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya
>>>     <vishvananda at gmail.com <mailto:vishvananda at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>     >
>>>     >> I am all for pulling this out, but I'm a bit concerned with
>>>     the fact that we have nothing to replace it with. There are some
>>>     groups still trying to use it. MercadoLibre is trying to use it
>>>     for example. I know you guys are trying to replace this with
>>>     something better, but it would be nice not to break people for
>>>     7+ months
>>>     >>
>>>     >>
>>>     >> So I guess I have some questions:
>>>     >> 1.a) is the current implementation completely broken?
>>>     >>
>>>     >> 1.b) if yes, is it fixable
>>>     >>
>>>     >> 2) If we do remove this, what can we tell people that need
>>>     something like zones between now and the Folsom release?
>>>     >>
>>>     >> Vish
>>>     >> On Feb 1, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>>>     >>
>>>     >>> As part of the new (and optional) Zones code coming down the
>>>     pipe, part of this is to remove the old Zones implementation.
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> More info in the merge prop:
>>>     >>> https://review.openstack.org/#change,3629
>>>     >>>
>>>     >>> So, can I? can I? Huh?
>>>     >>> _______________________________________________
>>>     >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>>>     >>> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
>>>     <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>>>     >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>>>     >>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>     >>
>>>     >>
>>>     >> _______________________________________________
>>>     >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>>>     >> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
>>>     <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>>>     >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>>>     >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>>>     Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
>>>     <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>>>     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>>>     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack 
>> <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>> Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net 
>> <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack 
>> <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120201/d8570065/attachment.html>