On 03/03/2014 02:32 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:09 -0800, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
On Mar 3, 2014, at 6:48 AM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 2014-03-02 at 12:05 -0800, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
Having done some work with MySQL (specifically around similar data
sets) and discussing the changes with some former coworkers (MySQL
experts) I am inclined to believe the move from varchar to binary
absolutely would increase performance like this.
However, I would like to get some real benchmarks around it and if it
really makes a difference we should get a smart "UUID" type into the
common SQLlibs (can pgsql see a similar benefit? Db2?) I think this
conversation. Should be split off from the keystone one at hand - I
don't want valuable information / discussions to get lost.
No disagreement on either point. However, this should be done after the
standardization to a UUID user_id in Keystone, as a separate performance
improvement patch. Agree?
Best,
-jay
-1
The expectation in other projects has been that project_ids and user_ids are
opaque strings. I need to see more clear benefit to enforcing stricter typing
on these, because I think it might break a lot of things.
What does Nova lose here? The proposal is to have Keystone's user_id
values be UUIDs all the time. There would be a migration or helper
script against Nova's database that would change all non-UUID user_id
values to the Keystone UUID values.
If there's stuff in Nova that would break (which is doubtful,
considering like you say, these are supposed to be "opaque values" and
as such should not have any restrictions or validation on their value),
then that is code in Nova that should be fixed.
Honestly, we shouldn't accept poor or loose code just because "stuff
might break".
Why do you think that UUIDs would be some sort of magic bullet?
Thus far, we've stated that IDs are opaque strings, and that they will
be URL safe. Adding additional Database lokups on top of LDAP calls is
going to make LDAP code paths even more convoluted than they are now.
I'd like to avoid that. And I don't see the benefit.
I'd be interested in hearing why CN is a bad default choice for LDAP; we
have to use a very high up theRFE chain object class by default and
didn't have that many attributes to chose from.
-jay
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
