Hi team,
I want to discuss benefits of using host networking [1] for docker
containers, on master node.
This feature was added in docker 0.11 and basicly means - reuse host
networking stack, without
creating separate namespace for each container.
In my opinion it will result in much more stable
The root cause for the issue was the fact that our devstack VMs were still
running libvirt 0.9.8 and we missed the commit where libvirt 0.9.11 was
forced as a minimum requirement.
This has been fixed for a while now. However, I made a mistake and as a
result some patches have received a -1 from VM
> > We seem to be unable to address some key issues in the software we
> > produce, and part of it is due to strategic contributors (and core
> > reviewers) being overwhelmed just trying to stay afloat of what's
> > happening. For such projects, is it time for a pause ? Is it time to
> > define k
Hi Folks,
Dina Belova has recently landed some infra patches[1,2] to create
an experimental mongodb-based Tempest job. This effectively just
overrides the ceilometer storage backend config so that mongodb
is used instead of sql-alchemy. The new job has been running
happily for a few days so I'd l
Eoghan,
Nice work on this. I think that first of all this job should be run on
every patch for some period of time (not only in experimental pipe)
By the way, If you would like we can help from Rally side.
We are running benchmarks on every patch in it's gates. Ceilometer is fully
turned on in th
On Aug 9, 2014 4:22 AM, "Eoghan Glynn" wrote:
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> Dina Belova has recently landed some infra patches[1,2] to create
> an experimental mongodb-based Tempest job. This effectively just
> overrides the ceilometer storage backend config so that mongodb
> is used instead of sql-alchemy.
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > Dina Belova has recently landed some infra patches[1,2] to create
> > an experimental mongodb-based Tempest job. This effectively just
> > overrides the ceilometer storage backend config so that mongodb
> > is used instead of sql-alchemy. The new job has been running
> > ha
> Eoghan,
>
> Nice work on this. I think that first of all this job should be run on every
> patch for some period of time (not only in experimental pipe)
>
> By the way, If you would like we can help from Rally side.
> We are running benchmarks on every patch in it's gates. Ceilometer is fully
+2 from me,
More mongodb adoption (as stated) when it's questionable legally doesn't seem
like a good long term strategy (I know it will/does impact yahoo adopting or
using ceilometer...). Is this another one of those tactical changes that we
keep on making that ends up being yet another piece
> +2 from me,
>
> More mongodb adoption (as stated) when it's questionable legally doesn't seem
> like a good long term strategy (I know it will/does impact yahoo adopting or
> using ceilometer...). Is this another one of those tactical changes that we
> keep on making that ends up being yet ano
Agreed, testing options is good; and should likely be disjoint from the legal
questions around mongodb...
Although if there is really only one viable & scalable option and that option
has legal usage questions surrounding it then it makes me wonder how much we
are kidding ourselves on there bei
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 1:31 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
> On 08/08/2014 12:12 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> > On 08/07/2014 01:41 PM, Eoghan Glynn wrote:
> >> My point was simply that we don't have direct control over the
> >> contributors' activities
> >
> > This is not correct and I've seen it re
> Agreed, testing options is good; and should likely be disjoint from the legal
> questions around mongodb...
>
> Although if there is really only one viable & scalable option and that option
> has legal usage questions surrounding it then it makes me wonder how much we
> are kidding ourselves o
On 2014-08-08 09:43:54 -0700 (-0700), Devananda van der Veen wrote:
[...]
> this sounds like it will also solve the current problem when a
> core reviewer has gone on vacation after blocking something for
> procedural reasons.
I don't really think so, unless I'm misunderstanding which vacation
pro
+1 to what john said,
I would also like to wait and see on this... I'd rather be honest with
ourselves, and to contributors new and old, and admit core reviewers are air
traffic controllers (directing the project vs reviewing changes, two very
different things IMHO) and reflecting that in what
On 2014-08-08 09:06:29 -0400 (-0400), Russell Bryant wrote:
[...]
> We've seen several times that building and maintaining 3rd party
> CI is a *lot* of work.
Building and maintaining *any* CI is a *lot* of work, not the least
of which is the official OpenStack project CI (I believe Monty
mentioned
Paul, does this friend of a friend have a reproduceable test script for
this?
Thanks!
-jay
On 08/08/2014 04:42 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
If this is true, I think the issue is not on Neutron side but the Nova
side.
Neutron just receives and handles individual port requests. It has no
notion of th
On 9 August 2014 10:16, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Paul, does this friend of a friend have a reproduceable test script for
> this?
>
> Thanks!
> -jay
>
>
We would also need to know the OpenStack release where this issue manifest
itself. A number of bugs have been raised in the past around this type of
is
I have reported a bug as "tempest volume-type test failed for hp_msa_fc
driver" in tempest
project.
Bug Id is "Bug #1353850"
My Tempest tests are failed on cinder driver.
No one till responded to my bug.
I am new in this area.
Please help me to solve this.
Regards
Nikesh
_
On Sat, Aug 9, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Nikesh Kumar Mahalka <
nikeshmaha...@vedams.com> wrote:
> I have reported a bug as "tempest volume-type test failed for hp_msa_fc
> driver" in tempest
> project.
> Bug Id is "Bug #1353850"
> My Tempest tests are failed on cinder driver.
>
>
>
> No one till responded
So I've done some work on improving the code on the current pending
reviews. And would like to get peoples' opinions on whether I should
add antoher patch set to those reviews, or add the changes as as another
review dependent on the pending ones.
To be clear, no matter what the first review in t
I think you should update the current reviews (new patch set, not additional
review.)
Doug
> On Aug 9, 2014, at 3:34 PM, "Brandon Logan"
> wrote:
>
> So I've done some work on improving the code on the current pending
> reviews. And would like to get peoples' opinions on whether I should
>
Hi Paul, as I know, nova can guarante the ordering of vNICS, can you provide
the reproduceable test script for this, I am glad to test it
At 2014-08-10 01:16:16, "Jay Pipes" wrote:
>Paul, does this friend of a friend have a reproduceable test script for
>this?
>
>Thanks!
>-jay
>
>On 08/0
23 matches
Mail list logo
