On Mon, Jan 9, 2017, at 01:58 PM, James E. Blair wrote: > cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes: > > >> Yup, I think this makes sense and avoids duplicate image data. One other > >> similarish use case that I don't think this addresses that we should > >> consider is the one we had in hpcloud and what we do in osic-cloud1 > >> currently. Basically chunk up a provider in several different ways to > >> affect distribution of nodes based on attributes within that provider. I > >> don't have any great ideas for how that might look right now, but wonder > >> if that might also solve the flavor problem. Probably something to think > >> about before we commit to this. > > > > Yeah, I don't think this addresses that problem. I suspect a real > > solution to it would look a lot different than what we have now. I'm > > open to suggestions. > > Perhaps something like this? It creates a new "pools" section which is > groups of instances+labels within a provider. The actual image uploads > are still at the provider level. It's a bit more complicated, in that > we have to explicitly cross-link the label to the cloud image (the > previous suggestion implicitly did that by being underneath it in the > yaml hierarchy). It does provide a nice retcon for 'nodepool' though. > :)
I like this. Would definitely make the current osic setup simpler (and reduce the amount of work that the builder has to do uploading to those "providers"). Clark _______________________________________________ OpenStack-Infra mailing list OpenStack-Infra@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-infra
