On Mon, Jan 9, 2017, at 01:58 PM, James E. Blair wrote:
> cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
>
> >> Yup, I think this makes sense and avoids duplicate image data. One other
> >> similarish use case that I don't think this addresses that we should
> >> consider is the one we had in hpclou
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:58:14PM -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
>
> >> Yup, I think this makes sense and avoids duplicate image data. One other
> >> similarish use case that I don't think this addresses that we should
> >> consider is the one we had i
cor...@inaugust.com (James E. Blair) writes:
>> Yup, I think this makes sense and avoids duplicate image data. One other
>> similarish use case that I don't think this addresses that we should
>> consider is the one we had in hpcloud and what we do in osic-cloud1
>> currently. Basically chunk up a
Paul Belanger writes:
> What are you visioning for the image-type key? I only bring it up since we've
> dropped 'images' here.
The thing that says "qcow2"? That's an attribute of the provider and
doesn't need to change (we also usually get it via OSCC anyway -- maybe
we can remove it).
> On th
Clark Boylan writes:
> This appears to currently be called "meta".
Let's change it while we're at it. :)
>> That also lets us remove the 'providers' section from each label
>> definition. That is used to indicate which providers should be used to
>> create nodes of each label, but by associat
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 10:19:26AM -0800, James E. Blair wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been working on reconciling a confusing part of the Nodepool config
> file: the mapping between labels, provider images, and diskimages.
>
> Broadly speaking the three constructs are:
>
> diskimages: the file(s) that
On Tue, Dec 20, 2016, at 10:19 AM, James E. Blair wrote:
snip
> I think we should change the provider images section to separate out the
> parts pertaining to diskimages and those pertaining to flavors.
> Something like:
>
> labels:
> - name: small-ubuntu-trusty
> ready-script: confi
On 2016-12-20 10:19:26 -0800 (-0800), James E. Blair wrote:
[...]
> I think we should change the provider images section to separate out the
> parts pertaining to diskimages and those pertaining to flavors.
> Something like:
[...]
> providers:
> - name: cloud
> diskimages:
> - n
Hi,
I've been working on reconciling a confusing part of the Nodepool config
file: the mapping between labels, provider images, and diskimages.
Broadly speaking the three constructs are:
diskimages: the file(s) that DIB produces
provider images: a disk image uploaded to a provider, combined with
