openstack team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Metadata schema design
My vote would be to call the table InstanceProperties.
Regarding the ability of other services to use the table wouldn't it be cleaner if services had their own 'properties' tables (like the Glance registry service does).
In other words services would have control over their own metadata tables. If the volume service needs metadata it should have its own table (or DB), etc.
From: "Justin Santa Barbara" <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2011 1:29pm
Subject: [Openstack] Metadata schema design
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
I've coded support for metadata on instances. This is part of the
CloudServers API, and I needed it for my idea about metadata hints to the
However, Jay Pipes has raised some (very valid) design questions on the
I called the table/entity 'Metadata', and it has two main attributes: 'key'
and 'value'. There's a foreign key to Instances, and long term I'd expect
we'd add more foreign keys to other parent entities. I expect only one of
those parent foreign keys would be populated per row.
1. Are those words too overloaded? Jay suggested (Instance)Properties.
However, then the question arises about the 'core properties' (zone, image,
instance_type for a machine) and why they are not stored in the 'properties'
collection. This is really metadata, and the CloudServers API calls it
metadata. What do people think these should be named? "Metadata"?
2. I imagine that Volumes will also have metadata (long term, probably
everything will - networks, images, instance types, network objects). So
should we have one entity/table or multiple entities (one per parent type)?
I like the idea of one entity, because I think it will yield better code
with less code duplication. From a SQL viewpoint, one per parent entity is
probably more normal though.