openstack team mailing list archive

[Sean Roberts <seanrob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

+1 for compute-cells

~sean

On Feb 19, 2012, at 11:10 AM, "Tim Bell" <Tim.Bell@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> Fully agree with the prefix for the cell... there should be storage-cells
> and compute-cells with different goals in terms of data locality and
> availability, zone has become too overloaded...
> 
> Tim
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: openstack-bounces+tim.bell=cern.ch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:openstack-bounces+tim.bell=cern.ch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
>> Of Mark Washenberger
>> Sent: 19 February 2012 19:54
>> To: openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Remove Zones code - FFE
>> 
>>>    Remember that for many deployments, the entire system will be a
>>> single "zone", so whatever term is used should make sense in a
>>> singular sense. That rules out names such as 'slice' or 'fragment'.
>> 
>> I think this is a slightly outdated concept of zones.
>> 
>> The key to scalability in nova is to divide the set of all compute nodes
> into
>> subsets, each with its own messaging and database infrastructure. The
>> granularity of everything else (scheduling, api, volume, network,
> what-have-
>> you) is just an implementation or deployment detail that should be
> flexible
>> depending on our ultimate implementation and any alternative strategies we
>> expose to deployers.
>> 
>> With this in mind it's still true that the smallest deployment would be
> likely
>> include just one compute zone (or compute cell, as we are trending). But
>> that is a far cry from the whole system even in a small deployment.
>> 
>> For this reason, whatever name we choose I would hope we prefix it with
>> "compute-" (i.e. compute-zone or compute-cell) so that we aren't letting
>> language trick us out of some of our better implementation options, such
> as
>> allowing deployers to scale compute, volume, network, and api resources
>> separately.
>> 
>> "Ed Leafe" <ed.leafe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
>> 
>>> On Feb 18, 2012, at 1:08 PM, Nathanael Burton wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Sectors remind me too much of disks.
>>> 
>>>    Agreed.
>>> 
>>>> How about? Layers, Slices, Fragments, Knots...
>>> 
>>>    Remember that for many deployments, the entire system will be a
>>> single "zone", so whatever term is used should make sense in a
>>> singular sense. That rules out names such as 'slice' or 'fragment'.
>>> 
>>>    'Knot'? In what sense can 'knot' be used?
>>> 
>>>    I still prefer 'cell'. The parallel to single celled /
> multi-cellular
>>> life forms makes sense, and there is really no overloading of the word
>>> in the world of computers.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- Ed Leafe
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> <smime.p7s>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp