On 16 July 2014 03:45, Debojyoti Dutta wrote:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SchedulerUseCases
>
> [08:43:35] #action all update the use case etherpad
> athttps://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SchedulerUseCases
>
> Please update your use cases here ..
Added.
-Rob
--
Robert Collins
Disting
Le 17/07/2014 01:24, Robert Collins a écrit :
> On 15 July 2014 06:10, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>> Frankly, I don't think a lot of the NFV use cases are well-defined.
>>
>> Even more frankly, I don't see any benefit to a split-out scheduler to a
>> single NFV use case.
>>
>>
>>> Don't you see each Summi
On 15 July 2014 06:10, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Frankly, I don't think a lot of the NFV use cases are well-defined.
>
> Even more frankly, I don't see any benefit to a split-out scheduler to a
> single NFV use case.
>
>
>> Don't you see each Summit the lots of talks (and people attending
>> them) talki
On 07/14/2014 12:10 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 07/14/2014 10:16 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
From an operator perspective, people waited so long for having a
scheduler doing "scheduling" and not only "resource placement".
Could you elaborate a bit here? What operators are begging for the
scheduler
ferring to.
--
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
Ph: 303/443-3786
-Original Message-
From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 9:05 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Gantt] Sc
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SchedulerUseCases
[08:43:35] #action all update the use case etherpad
athttps://etherpad.openstack.org/p/SchedulerUseCases
Please update your use cases here ..
thx
debo
On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 14/07/2014 20:10, Jay Pipes
Hi Paul, thanks for your reply. Comments inline.
BTW, is there any way to reply inline instead of top-posting? On these
longer emails, it gets hard sometimes to follow your reply to specific
things I mentioned (vs. what John G mentioned).
Death to MS Outlook.
On 07/14/2014 04:40 PM, Murray, Pau
Le 14/07/2014 20:10, Jay Pipes a écrit :
> On 07/14/2014 10:16 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Le 12/07/2014 06:07, Jay Pipes a écrit :
>>> On 07/11/2014 07:14 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
>> On 07/10/2
On 07/14/2014 10:16 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 12/07/2014 06:07, Jay Pipes a écrit :
On 07/11/2014 07:14 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hi all,
=== tl;dr: Now th
Le 12/07/2014 06:07, Jay Pipes a écrit :
> On 07/11/2014 07:14 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>> On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>> Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> === tl;dr: Now that we agree on waitin
On 12 July 2014 05:07, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 07/11/2014 07:14 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>> While I am not against moving the resource tracker, I feel we could
>> move this to Gantt after the core scheduling has been moved.
>
> Big -1 from me on this, John.
>
> Frankly, I see no urgency whatsoever --
t (not for usage
questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Gantt] Scheduler
split status (updated)
Le 11/07/2014 13:14, John Garbutt a écrit :
On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hi all,
===
2014 8:38 AM
To: John Garbutt
Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Gantt] Scheduler split status (updated)
Le 11/07/2014 13:14, John Garbutt a écrit :
> On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Rus
On 07/11/2014 07:14 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hi all,
=== tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the split prereqs
to be done, we debate on if ResourceTracker
Le 11/07/2014 13:14, John Garbutt a écrit :
> On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
>>> On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
Hi all,
===
tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the split prereqs to be done, we
On 10 July 2014 16:59, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
>> On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> ===
>>> tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the split prereqs to be done, we
>>> debate on if ResourceTracker should be part of the sc
Le 10/07/2014 15:47, Russell Bryant a écrit :
> On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> ===
>> tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the split prereqs to be done, we
>> debate on if ResourceTracker should be part of the scheduler code and
>> consequently Scheduler should exp
M
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Gantt] Scheduler split status (updated)
Le 10/07/2014 16:32, Dugger, Donald D a écrit :
> Active discussion at the gantt meeting this week, check out the log:
>
>
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetin
t: Thursday, July 10, 2014 7:48 AM
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Gantt] Scheduler split status (updated)
>
> On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> ===
>> tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the spl
ell Bryant [mailto:rbry...@redhat.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2014 7:48 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Gantt] Scheduler split status (updated)
On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> ===
> tl;dr: Now that we agree on
On 07/10/2014 05:06 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> ===
> tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the split prereqs to be done, we
> debate on if ResourceTracker should be part of the scheduler code and
> consequently Scheduler should expose ResourceTracker APIs so that Nova
> wouldn't own
Hi all,
===
tl;dr: Now that we agree on waiting for the split prereqs to be done, we
debate on if ResourceTracker should be part of the scheduler code and
consequently Scheduler should expose ResourceTracker APIs so that Nova
wouldn't own compute nodes resources. I'm proposing to first come with
R
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 8:02 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:38:57PM +, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> > Well, my main thought is that I would prefer to see the gantt split
> > done sooner rather than later. The reality is that we've been trying
> > to split out the sche
On Mon, Jul 7, 2014 at 7:53 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 07/07/2014 12:00, Michael Still a écrit :
> > I think you'd be better of requesting an exception for your spec than
> > splitting the scheduler immediately. These refactorings need to happen
> > anyways, and if your scheduler work diverges
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 02:38:57PM +, Dugger, Donald D wrote:
> Well, my main thought is that I would prefer to see the gantt split
> done sooner rather than later. The reality is that we've been trying
> to split out the scheduler for months and we're still not there. Until
> we bite the bul
Le 07/07/2014 12:00, Michael Still a écrit :
> I think you'd be better of requesting an exception for your spec than
> splitting the scheduler immediately. These refactorings need to happen
> anyways, and if your scheduler work diverges too far from nova then
> we're going to have a painful time ge
Well, my main thought is that I would prefer to see the gantt split done sooner
rather than later. The reality is that we've been trying to split out the
scheduler for months and we're still not there. Until we bite the bullet and
actually do the split I'm afraid we'll still be here discussing
On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 09:28:16AM +0200, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Le 04/07/2014 10:41, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> > On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> >> On 07/03/2014 01:53 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> >>> That doesn't mean Gantt will move forward and leave all miss
I think you'd be better of requesting an exception for your spec than
splitting the scheduler immediately. These refactorings need to happen
anyways, and if your scheduler work diverges too far from nova then
we're going to have a painful time getting things back in sync later.
Michael
On Mon, Ju
Le 04/07/2014 10:41, Daniel P. Berrange a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 07/03/2014 01:53 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> ==
>>> tl; dr: A decision has been made to split out the scheduler to a
>>> separate project not on a feature parity ba
On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 03:30:06PM -0400, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 07/03/2014 01:53 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > ==
> > tl; dr: A decision has been made to split out the scheduler to a
> > separate project not on a feature parity basis with nova-scheduler, your
> > comments are welco
On 07/03/2014 01:53 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ==
> tl; dr: A decision has been made to split out the scheduler to a
> separate project not on a feature parity basis with nova-scheduler, your
> comments are welcome.
> ==
...
> During the last Gantt meeting held Tuesday, we discussed abou
32 matches
Mail list logo
