Open Stack

Agreed, I think separating active vs suspended resources would
unnecessarily complicate things. The idea here is that if you are
suspending an instance, the resources that instance was using should be
released back to the tenant for use. If there are no more resources
available, then resuming an instance should fail.


On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Rick Jones <rick.jones2 at hp.com> wrote:

>
>> Maybe seperate quotas for active vs suspended?  ​
>>
>
> That sounds overly complicated.  At the risk of demonstrating some
> ignroance on my part, w have to keep in mind it isn't just quota for the
> tenant, but actual available resource on the compute node yes?  If
> suspended instances are going to be dropped from the tenant's quota, one
> would, presumably, reasonably argue that the compute node on which that
> instance was scheduled should then be marked as having more room, (or there
> is the question of whether the tenant would be able to launch anything more
> in the first place) which then means having to check not only the tenant's
> quota but also the actual available capacity on the compute node.
>
> For instances which do not need to be up all that often, but seem to need
> a persistent "state," which seems to be what is driving this desire, I
> would think that volumes would be the better/less complicated way to go.
>  Boot from and store in Cinder volumes and then they can come and go as you
> will.
>
> rick jones
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack
> Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> Unsubscribe : http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack
>



-- 
Ricky Saltzer
http://www.cloudera.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20140623/5ecc2412/attachment.html>