We manage a fairly large nova-baremetal installation at Yahoo. And while we've
developed tools to hit the nova-bm API, we're planning to move to ironic
without any support for the nova BM API. Definitely no interest in the proxy
API from our end.
Sometimes you just need to let a thing die.
-Ja
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/10/2014 02:26 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> 1) Is this tested anywhere? There are no unit tests in the patch
>> and it's not clear to me that there would be any Tempest coverage
>> of this code path. Providing this and having it break a couple
>> of
On 09/10/2014 03:14 PM, Ben Nemec wrote:
> On 09/10/2014 01:13 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>> As far as I understand it, though, that's a patch for a
>>> read-only mode. It seems bizzare, and possibly dangerous, to
>>> proxy read commands, but not write commands. It gives the
>>> impression that everyt
> 1) Is this tested anywhere? There are no unit tests in the patch and
> it's not clear to me that there would be any Tempest coverage of this
> code path. Providing this and having it break a couple of months down
> the line seems worse than not providing it at all. This is obviously
> fixable
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 09/10/2014 01:13 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> As far as I understand it, though, that's a patch for a
>> read-only mode. It seems bizzare, and possibly dangerous, to
>> proxy read commands, but not write commands. It gives the
>> impression that everyt
> As far as I understand it, though, that's a patch for a read-only
> mode. It seems bizzare, and possibly dangerous, to proxy read
> commands, but not write commands. It gives the impression that
> everything's fine until it's not fine (because someone tried to use
> an existing script to do a c
nd
> then having them discover later that something broke because they tried to
> create a node.
>
> Best Regards,
> Solly Ross
>
> - Original Message -
>> From: "Sean Dague"
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, Sep
r that something broke because they tried to create a node.
Best Regards,
Solly Ross
- Original Message -
> From: "Sean Dague"
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:33:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] On an API proxy
I thought it might be helpful to show a sample of the output from the
proxied commands: Please find the example here:
http://paste.openstack.org/show/Em861wMwFvrFlsWkugfX
Chris Krelle
NobodyCam
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:33 AM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 11:22 PM, Russell Bryant wrote
On 09/09/2014 11:22 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 05:24 PM, Michael Still wrote:
>> Hi.
>>
>> One of the last things blocking Ironic from graduating is deciding
>> whether or not we need a Nova API proxy for the old baremetal
>> extension to new fangled Ironic API. The TC has asked that
On 09/09/2014 05:24 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> Hi.
>
> One of the last things blocking Ironic from graduating is deciding
> whether or not we need a Nova API proxy for the old baremetal
> extension to new fangled Ironic API. The TC has asked that we discuss
> whether we think this functionality is
On 09/09/2014 04:24 PM, Michael Still wrote:
> Hi.
>
> One of the last things blocking Ironic from graduating is deciding
> whether or not we need a Nova API proxy for the old baremetal
> extension to new fangled Ironic API. The TC has asked that we discuss
> whether we think this functionality is
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Solly Ross wrote:
> With my admittedly limited knowledge of the whole Ironic process, the
> question seems to me to be: "If we don't implement a proxy, which people are
> going to have a serious problem?"
>
> Do we have an data on which users/operators are making
With my admittedly limited knowledge of the whole Ironic process, the question
seems to me to be: "If we don't implement a proxy, which people are going to
have a serious problem?"
Do we have an data on which users/operators are making use of the baremetal API
in any extensive fashion? If nobo
14 matches
Mail list logo
