On 05/15/2016 04:53 AM, Xav Paice wrote:
> Great stuff! - that's covered everything I've been looking at so far, except
> that we're not wanting to run neutron-server (and therefore the octavia api)
> on the same boxes as the Neutron L3 agent (where I understand we need to run
> the worker). Th
On 14 May 2016 at 00:27, Major Hayden wrote:
>
> For what it's worth, I have a (somewhat dated) branch with Octavia support
> in Github[1].
>
>
>
Great stuff! - that's covered everything I've been looking at so far,
except that we're not wanting to run neutron-server (and therefore the
octavia ap
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/12/2016 11:42 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
> Thanks for explaining that - I thought I was going mad. You're right about
> implementation challenges!
It's definitely a new way of doing things. I'm trying to get used to this new
service VM model (li
Thanks for explaining that - I thought I was going mad. You're right about
implementation challenges!
TBH, I'm writing something that would work at least in our environment and
trying to keep it as small and simple as possible so we can maintain it -
currently one of our dev team is adding a feat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/10/2016 11:58 PM, Xav Paice wrote:
> Sorry to dig up an ancient thread.
>
> I see the spec has been implemented, and in the os_neutron repo I see configs
> for the Haproxy driver for LOADBALANCERV2 - but not Octavia. Am I missing
> somethin
Sorry to dig up an ancient thread.
I see the spec has been implemented, and in the os_neutron repo I see
configs for the Haproxy driver for LOADBALANCERV2 - but not Octavia. Am I
missing something here?
On 29 January 2016 at 10:03, Major Hayden wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/26/2016 01:48 PM, Kevin Carter wrote:
> I personally think it'd be great to see this feature in OSA and I look
> forward to reviewing the spec.
The first draft of the spec is in Gerrit:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/273749/
I appreciat
>I am interested in making things better for deployers, operators, developers)
>
>--
>
>Kevin Carter
>IRC: cloudnull
>
>
>
>From: Fox, Kevin M
>Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 5:38 PM
>To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not fo
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible] LBaaSv2 / Octavia support
Thats very very unfortunate. :/ Lbaas team, (or any other team), please never
do this again. :/
so does liberty/mitaka at least support using the old v1? it would be nice
e quite painful. If
>they can be made to co'exist, that would be substantially better.
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:19 PM
>To: openstack-dev@lists.op
o'exist, that would be substantially better.
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
>From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:19 PM
>To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [o
co'exist, that would be substantially better.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Brandon Logan [brandon.lo...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 12:19 PM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible] LBaaSv2 / Octav
] [openstack-ansible] LBaaSv2 / Octavia support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/26/2016 02:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> I believe lbaas v1 and v2 are different then every other openstack api
> version in that while you can run v1 and v2 at the same time but they are
> c
Oh lbaas versioning was a big deal in the beginning. Versioning an
advanced service is a whole other topic and exposed many "interesting"
issues with the neutron extension and service plugin framework.
The reason v1 and v2 cannot be run together are mainly to get over an
issue we had with the 2 d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/26/2016 02:01 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> I believe lbaas v1 and v2 are different then every other openstack api
> version in that while you can run v1 and v2 at the same time but they are
> completely different systems that just share a name.
(not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible] LBaaSv2 / Octavia support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey there,
After poking around a bit at LBaaS in OpenStack-Ansible, I discovered that
LBaaS v2[1] was available in Liberty and Mitaka. At firs
gt; Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 1:40 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [openstack-ansible] LBaaSv2 / Octavia support
>
> Hey there,
>
> After poking around a bit at LBaaS in OpenStack-Ansible, I discovered that
&
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 01/26/2016 01:48 PM, Kevin Carter wrote:
> Seems like a sensible change however I'd love to see it written up as a spec.
> Also do we know if there are any scenario tests in tempest for octavia or
> would we need to develop them/something?
>
>
nstack-dev] [openstack-ansible] LBaaSv2 / Octavia support
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey there,
After poking around a bit at LBaaS in OpenStack-Ansible, I discovered that
LBaaS v2[1] was available in Liberty and Mitaka. At first, I thought it
involved switching agents from neu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hey there,
After poking around a bit at LBaaS in OpenStack-Ansible, I discovered that
LBaaS v2[1] was available in Liberty and Mitaka. At first, I thought it
involved switching agents from neutron-lbaas-agent to neutron-lbaasv2-agent,
but things
20 matches
Mail list logo
