Melvin,
I don't see anywhere on the meetup page defining who has been assigned to
moderate what? Is there a document describing this yet?
Robert
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 9:35 AM, Melvin Hillsman
wrote:
> Hey everyone,
>
> Thank you all for signing up to be moderators at the upcoming Operator
>
Chris,
What's the status of this? Is there an eventbrite set up for it? What
still needs to be done? Do we have a session catalog established yet?
Robert
On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Chris Morgan wrote:
> For the purposes of the mid-cycle meeting this august, I can be the point
> of cont
I didnt' even realize that there was a special "internal" driver. The only
time I've set this parameter was to use a non-standard IPAM service (
romana.io SDN specifically), otherwise I'd likely never have even looked
for an ipam_driver config parameter.
R
On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Sean M.
I'll second David's comments, and second the fact that the Manchester
layout seemed to work well. The facility in Manchester provided a couple
secondary rooms plus a few much smaller rooms which I think generally
worked well. Having a tertiary area for meals/"networking" type engagements
should al
My understanding is that all of the work has been done against Mitaka and
with 16.04. I've not heard of any backporting that's been looked at, and
if there are any complications that would make this difficult.
R
On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 11:29 AM, Gustavo Randich wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is it possible
Seems like a great approach. You might want to also include:
This bug was probably not triaged due to lack of information to reproduce
the issue. Please include as much information about the problem including
steps to allow a developer to reproduce the issue in order for your time in
reporting i
I don't have cycles to support this development, but I do think that the
function is worth while, wether you are using a 3rd party IPAM model or
not, there are plenty of developers who expect a specific IP Address (even
if it was randomly assigned via some other process, like booting without
defini
That's effectively my understanding.
On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Matthew Thode
wrote:
> On 05/13/2016 01:59 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> > Matthew Thode wrote:
> >> On 05/13/2016 12:48 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
> > * Was/is kolla used or looked into? or something custom?
> >
> Ope
I'm working with a customer to define and manage a transition to what is
currently anticipated to be a container based solution for OpenStack
services. The focus on containers is to simplify the middleware deployment
of both OpenStack services and other services that are deployed to enable
the ove
appy because they could now go down the path.
>
> The simple answer should have been - get off the bike and pick up the
> tacks - instead of finding ways to
> over-engineer the problem
>
> Either show the right thing - or don't show it at all.
>
> My 0.02 Shekels.
>
You could just ask for the value of virt_type parameter from a compute host
(or the output of something like grep 'virt_type' /etc/nova/nova*) if you
are using qemu or kvm. I believe that's how nova figures out what
parameters to use when launching an instance.
On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:39 AM, Kr
Maybe a result of the discussion can be a set of models (let's not go so
far as to call them best pracices yet :) for how maintainance can be done
at scale, perhaps solidifying the descriptions Jay has above with the user
stories Tomi described in his initial note. This seems like an achievable
ou
+1 for Kolla (and yes, I realize I just suggested Packstack). It certainly
is much easier to _operate_ once you get it up and running.
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:40 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
wrote:
> A suggestion to give Kolla a spin inside…
>
> From: Rayson Ho
> Date: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at
For small environments that just really want the basics of OpenStack
installed, and where Puppet is a functional solution, I can recommend
looking at the Packstack deployment. It's model based, and certainly has
it's own limitations, but it is functional, and you can start with an
all-in-one solut
I'll add a vote for removal, given how varied private clouds tend to be,
the flavors are often "wrong" for any one particular purpose.
R
On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 8:41 PM, Mike Smith wrote:
> +1 from me. We always just remove them and add our own. Like Dan said,
> it’s consistent with populating
I add another voice, I have customers who are looking to extend their cloud
into the container space, and raised concerns about the multi-SDN approach
that seemed to be needed in environments where both VM and Containers are
needed. Actually I have one who is curious as to how this maps to Iroinc
If fixing a typo in a document is considered a technical contribution, then
I think we've already cast the net far and wide. ATC as used has become a
name implying you're trying to make OpenStack better, more useable, and
more functional for those who would use/deploy (and fix, update, enhance)
it.
So when a user manages a discussion across a group of operators, who's
input is then fed into the development teams who are developing the
software, and in such a way are supporting the development cycle, would
those downstream users (I'm not touching the code), not also be ATCs? The
discussions a
I have to agree, unless you start with CI/CD as your deployment model,
you're going to be doing full upgrades. And be aware that at least one
package model will overwrite your carefully crafted config files if you
choose the wrong option. Having tried an upgrade to a system in the middle
of an up
I setup an etherpad to try to capture this discussion:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/OperatorRecognition
R
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:04 AM, Robert Starmer wrote:
> I agree with the list of contributions that should garner value, and I
> really like TOC, because some folks who meet the
I agree with the list of contributions that should garner value, and I
really like TOC, because some folks who meet the other operators
requirements may not actually _run_ OpenStack, they may "operate" on top :)
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> I have to a
There was work done on enabling much more dynamic scheduling, including
cross project scheduling (e.g. get additional placement hints from Neutron
or Cinder), and I believe the framework is even in place to make use of
this, but I don't believe anyone has written a scheduling component to make
use
Ha, now that's a truth :)
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:34 AM, Matt Jarvis
wrote:
> Agreed, although I've learned over the years that second guessing what
> actions customers may or may not take is usually a losing battle ;)
>
> On 26 February 2016 at 13:55, Robert Starmer
For a user that's gone and deleted their network services, then wouldn't
they perhaps be savvy enough to deploy a network/subnet pair. If they
don't want to pay for the router then this is what they'd be working
towards (by deleting their initially provisioned service). As it stands
today, if you
cool, then option 2 makes sense.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:41 PM, Kevin Benton wrote:
> The router is automatically created as well and is attached to the tenants
> network and an external network with the flag 'is_default' set to true.
> On Feb 24, 2016 6:25 PM, &quo
Most service environments I've worked with will deploy (often
automatically) a first tenant network and router, allowing for the simple
case of "deploy a vm, and it auto attaches to the only network" model. So
in effect, this is anticipated, if not expected, behavior. If on the other
hand, there
It still probably fits in OSOps, at least in contrib, as the idea is to
capture scripts and code that _may_ help someone, rather than necessarily
being 100% fit for any production environment. Of course, any/all
documentation available would also be useful.
Robert
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 8:42 PM
+1
Really a well put together event.
Robert
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 10:21 AM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> Thank you Matt!
>
> Great organization and a very good job putting all this together. Yes, see
> you in Austin.
>
> Edgar
>
> From: Matt Jarvis
> Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at 1:27 AM
>
+1 on two VIPs
On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 6:04 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Unfortunately I won't be able to make it to the Operator midcycle because
> of budget constraints or I would find the answer to this question there.
> The Kolla upstream is busy sorting out external ssl t
I thought this got stuck in the "do we need another list" and "well, what
is our alternative" discussion. So, no I don't recall any progress. I
still think it'd be useful to have a list. for this class of discussion.
Robert
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:01 PM, Adam Lawson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Jus
a-set, you corrupt them all...
Hence my comment about having some form of object storage (SWIFT is perhaps
even a good example of this architeccture, the proxy replicates, checks
MD5, etc. to verify good data, rather than just replicating blocks of data).
On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Robe
gt;>> Its just one pool of storage.
>>>
>>> Your right, using lvm is like telling your users, don't do pets, but
>>> then having pets at the heart of your system. when you loose one, you loose
>>> a lot. With a small ceph, you can take out o
do pets, but then
> having pets at the heart of your system. when you loose one, you loose a
> lot. With a small ceph, you can take out one of the nodes, burn it to the
> ground and put it back, and it just works. No pets.
>
> Do consider ceph for the small use case.
>
> Thanks,
>
> for failure than the users.
>
> But for environments were we offer general purpose / best effort compute
> and storage, what methods are available to help the user be resilient to
> block storage failures?
>
> Joe
>
> On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:09 PM, Robert Starmer wrote:
I've always recommended providing multiple underlying storage services to
provide this rather than adding the overhead to the VM. So, not in any of
my systems or any I've worked with.
R
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Joe Topjian wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Does anyone have users RAID'ing or stripin
I' m also open to moderating just about any session, but I'll volunteer for
Keystone Federation.
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:22 AM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> I can help moderating any session about Operations and Networking.
>
> Edgar
>
> From: Matt Jarvis
> Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 12:47 AM
r if its conflicting but it would still allow the
> existing code to function the way it always has, greatly simplifying
> implementation?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
>
> --
> *From:* Robert Starmer [rob...@kumul.us]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 2
ust adding my own additional layer of "this is how it should
be" on top.
Robert
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 3:33 PM, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
> But there already is a second external address, the fip address that's
> nating. Is there a double nat? I'm a little confused.
>
You can't get rid of the "External" address as it's used to direct return
traffic to the right router node. DVR as implemented is really just a
local NAT gateway per physical compute node. The outside of your NAT needs
to be publicly unique, so it needs it's own address. Some SDN solutions
can p
Glusterfs backend works great for shared glance, and can be configured for
a bit of redundancy at the disk level (rather than non distributed NFS,
which needs the NFS server to be present), much like the Ceph model Kevin
suggests. Is your database also resiliant (e.g. some form of mysql
replicatio
Congratulations Edgar!
Robert
On Wed, Jan 27, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Edgar Magana
wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Thank you so much Shilla and Jon for the support and confidence I am
> really looking forward to working with you as well.
>
> This is a great opportunity and I am very excited about it. I will d
I can't think of a case where better error response and log messages are
not useful/desired.
Robert
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Mike Dorman wrote:
> We use some custom API policies (as in policy.json) to restrict certain
> operations to particular roles or requiring some fields on calls (i.
42 matches
Mail list logo
