Hello,
Ok, I will try maybe to write such specs if I will have a while.
--
Best regards / Pozdrawiam
Sławek Kapłoński
sla...@kaplonski.pl
On Thu, 17 Nov 2016, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 11/17/2016 04:58 AM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Ok. So it's different case. I was thinking o
On 11/17/2016 04:58 AM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
Hello,
Ok. So it's different case. I was thinking only about issues with
quotas.
For me this which You described is more related to scheduler/placement
API(?).
Do You think that it should be taken in same specs?
Given that we need a spec to cover
Hello,
Ok. So it's different case. I was thinking only about issues with
quotas.
For me this which You described is more related to scheduler/placement
API(?).
Do You think that it should be taken in same specs?
--
Best regards / Pozdrawiam
Sławek Kapłoński
sla...@kaplonski.pl
On Thu, 17 Nov 20
On 11/17/2016 12:27 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 11/16/2016 03:55 PM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
As I said before, I was testing it and I didn't have instances in Error
state. Can You maybe check it once again on current master branch?
I don't have a master devstack handy...will try and set one up
On 11/16/2016 03:55 PM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
As I said before, I was testing it and I didn't have instances in Error
state. Can You maybe check it once again on current master branch?
I don't have a master devstack handy...will try and set one up. I just tried on
a stable/mitaka devstack--
--
Best regards / Pozdrawiam
Sławek Kapłoński
sla...@kaplonski.pl
On Wed, 16 Nov 2016, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 11/15/2016 06:50 PM, melanie witt wrote:
> > On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:10:40 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > > I'm in favor of your change, since the existing behaviour doesn't make
> >
On 11/15/2016 06:50 PM, melanie witt wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:10:40 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
I'm in favor of your change, since the existing behaviour doesn't make
sense.
But at some point I guess consistency trumps correctness, and if a new
microversion is necessary to mark the new beh
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 18:10:40 -0600, Chris Friesen wrote:
I'm in favor of your change, since the existing behaviour doesn't make
sense.
But at some point I guess consistency trumps correctness, and if a new
microversion is necessary to mark the new behaviour then a spec is
required, and at that p
On 11/15/2016 02:02 AM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
Hello,
IMHO receiving multiple uuids is not related to bug which I want to
resolve somehow but if Chris wrote it I thought that it is maybe somehow
related to "spawn multiple instances" feature.
So can You maybe review my patch
https://review.opens
Hello,
IMHO receiving multiple uuids is not related to bug which I want to
resolve somehow but if Chris wrote it I thought that it is maybe somehow
related to "spawn multiple instances" feature.
So can You maybe review my patch
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/371592/ to fix
https://bugs.launchpad
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:34:28 -0600, Matt Riedemann wrote:
Why do we want to return a list of uuids for servers created? I thought
that's why we have the 'return_reservation_id' request parameter for the
server multiple-create scenario so that you can get a single reservation
ID back and all of th
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 22:48:01 +0100, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
Are You sure that but
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1458122 is still valid? I tried to
spawn instances with min=3 and max=11 when quota was set to 10 and I had
spawned 10 instances properly (no any in error state). I also checked
On 11/14/2016 11:03 AM, Chris Friesen wrote:
3) returning the uuids of all instances booted as a result of the
multiboot API call
Why do we want to return a list of uuids for servers created? I thought
that's why we have the 'return_reservation_id' request parameter for the
server multiple-cr
Hello,
I remember that Melanie told me that there was another issues there and
I talked with her to check all cases. Are You sure that but
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1458122 is still valid? I tried to
spawn instances with min=3 and max=11 when quota was set to 10 and I had
spawned 10 ins
On 11/11/2016 07:07 AM, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
Hello,
Can maybe someone (from core team) take a look on that? Thx in advance :)
As Melanie Witt mentioned on your bug report, there are a number of issues
around multi-boot. (I reported https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1458122
last year
Hello,
Can maybe someone (from core team) take a look on that? Thx in advance :)
--
Best regards / Pozdrawiam
Sławek Kapłoński
sla...@kaplonski.pl
On Mon, 07 Nov 2016, Sławek Kapłoński wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Some time ago I found that there is problem with unconsistent behaviour
> (IMHO) of Nova
Hello,
Some time ago I found that there is problem with unconsistent behaviour
(IMHO) of Nova API when user wants to spawn bunch of instances in server
group (affinity or anti-affinity). I described it in [1].
I also made some summary how Nova is working in different cases of
spawning instances. R
17 matches
Mail list logo
