openstack team mailing list archive

[Joseph Suh <jsuh@xxxxxxx>]

Yunhong,

I understand your concern. It has a different purpose than the compute_filter, so it has its own merit and can co-exist. The question is how much the demand is...

Thanks,

Joseph

----
(w) 703-248-6160
(f) 703-812-3712
http://www.east.isi.edu/~jsuh

Information Sciences Institute
University of Southern California
3811 N. Fairfax Drive Suite 200
Arlington, VA, 22203, USA


----- Original Message -----
From: "Yunhong Jiang" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Joseph Suh" <jsuh@xxxxxxx>
Cc: "Donald D Dugger" <donald.d.dugger@xxxxxxxxx>, openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 11:39:54 AM
Subject: RE: One question on the compute_filter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Suh [mailto:jsuh@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:38 PM
> To: Jiang, Yunhong
> Cc: Dugger, Donald D; openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: One question on the compute_filter
> 
> Yunhong,
> 
> Thanks for your interest in our patch. The original purpose of the
> instance_type_extra_specs is providing ability to specify any specs that cannot
> be enumerated at the nova coding time such as hardware-specific
> requirements (like gpu) or any features in the future system (like python version
> 10). System administrator will populate necessary items at the time of
> deployment as he/she wants. Current compute_filter is a relatively simple code
> that compares the items in the instance_type_extra_specs with those in
> capability. In our patch, we want to add more operators, not changing the basic
> behavior.

Joseph, thanks for clarification.

> 
> The idea behind the compute_filter is that if items are specified in
> instance_type_extra_specs, the filter makes it sure that all the requested
> items are in the capability of the provisioned hosts.
> 
> So, in your approach, if you already know items that is required such as
> xpu_arch and want to ignore other items in the instance_type_extra_spec, one
> way might be to create another filter that checks only those known items. But,

The issue here is, if I create such another filter, then it possibly can't co-exist with compute filter :(

--jyh

> then, if there is a need to check another item or ignore an item in the future,
> the filter code needs to be modified. In our approach, it can be simply
> added/deleted in database by system administrator.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Joseph
>