On Fri, 17 Aug 2018, Tom Barron wrote:
Has there been a discussion on record of how use of placement by cinder would
affect "standalone" cinder (or manila) initiatives where there is a desire to
be able to run cinder by itself (with no-auth) or just with keystone (where
OpenStack style multi-tenancy is desired)?
This has been sort of glancingly addressed elsewhere in the thread,
but I wanted to make it explicit:
* It's possible now to run placement now with faked auth (the
noauth2 concept) or keystone. Making auth handling more flexible
would be a matter of choosing a different piece of middleware.
* Partly driven by discussion with Cinder people and also with fast
forward upgrade people, there's a feature in placement called
"PlacementDirect". This makes it possible to interact with
placement in the same process as the thing that is using it,
rather than over HTTP. So no additional placement server is
required, if that's how people want it. More info at:
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/api/openstack/placement/direct.py
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/rocky/approved/reshape-provider-tree.html#direct-interface-to-placement
However, since placement is lightweight (a simple-ish wsgi app over
some database tables) it likely easier just to run it like normal,
maybe in some containers to allow it to scale up and down easily.
If you have a look at https://github.com/cdent/placedock and some of
the links in the README, the flexibility and lightness may become a
bit more clear.
--
Chris Dent ٩◔̯◔۶ https://anticdent.org/
freenode: cdent tw: @anticdent
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
