On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen <tzuma...@redhat.com> wrote:
> So after reading the replies on this thread, it seems like I (and others > advocating > a custom scheduler) may have overthought things a bit. The reason this > route was > suggested was because of conflicting goals for Icehouse: > > a) homogeneous nodes (to simplify requirements) > b) support diverse hardware sets (to allow as many users as possible to > try Tuskar) > > Option b) requires either a custom scheduler or forcing nodes to have the > same attributes, > and the answer to that question is where much of the debate lies. > > However, taking a step back, maybe the real answer is: > > a) homogeneous nodes > b) document. . . > - **unsupported** means of "demoing" Tuskar (set node attributes to > match flavors, hack > the scheduler, etc) > - our goals of supporting heterogeneous nodes for the J-release. > > Does this seem reasonable to everyone? > +1 -Deva
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
