On Jul 27, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Sam Betts (sambetts) <sambe...@cisco.com> wrote:
> While discussing the proposal to add resource_class’ to Ironic nodes for > interacting with the resource provider system in Nova with Jim on IRC, I > voiced my concern about having a resource_class per node. My thoughts were > that we could achieve the behaviour we require by every Ironic node resource > provider having a "baremetal" resource class of which they can own a maximum > of 1. Flavor’s that are required to land on a baremetal node would then > define that they require at least 1 baremetal resource, along with any other > resources they require. I was going to respond pointing out the issues with that approach, but then the rest of your email did just that. :) I strongly preferred the approach that each particular hardware configuration would be a class, so that if you had 50 nodes with configuration A, and 20 nodes with configuration B, that that would be reflected in two resource classes, with corresponding inventories to match the nodes. When a node is provisioned, that inventory is decremented. This would be much more consistent with the rest of the resource provider design, as having many, many classes all of which represent identical hardware seems backwards. -- Ed Leafe __________________________________________________________________________ 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
