Update patch set 1
Patch Set 1:
(8 comments)
Patch-set: 1
CC: Gerrit User 4393 <4393@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543>
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 9708 \u003c9708@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"\u003cGERRIT_ACCOUNT_4393\u003e replied on the change"}
This commit is contained in:
Gerrit User 4393
Gerrit Code Review
parent
65f10be1c1
commit
42ccae57ab
|
|
@ -372,6 +372,23 @@
|
|||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "ecc28e0a_05b68e17",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 319,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "How did this jump from 0 to 4 here?",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -389,6 +406,23 @@
|
|||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "580557b4_df01d708",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 455,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "I think the ghost of jaypipes would say that this means you\u0027re using it wrong (i.e. because you\u0027re representing one set of hardware with twice the inventory). Personally I think any plan that goes down that road is a regression from where we\u0027ve been trying to get to with placement and our usage of it.",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
@ -406,6 +440,115 @@
|
|||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "026952c2_325f54dc",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 465,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Maybe I\u0027m missing something, but this seems like it\u0027s representing the same resources with double the inventory. Won\u0027t conductor/scheduler be over-allocating instances for the compute, especially if there\u0027s a flood of boot requests? Put another way, before the compute has a chance to twiddle the inventory to reflect reality after each boot, anything looking at only the placement inventory will not give an accurate picture.",
|
||||
"parentUuid": "68f5599a_86df508f",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "43e628af_21e5f5f2",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 477,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "I think this paragraph is really saying \"well, we can\u0027t be positive that an instance will fit, making it less accurate (or more lossy) isn\u0027t bad.\" I don\u0027t think I agree.",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "fd191732_8cc85566",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 487,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "It also means the compute can get hammered by multiple scheduler/conductor processes asking \"does this fit?\" during a massive boot request storm.",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "16428a35_fe33b75d",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 499,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "I think this approach would require fully exposing all the compute details so that a conductor can make that decision right?",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "3a92441b_b1330e9a",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 511,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "\"cpus\" ?",
|
||||
"range": {
|
||||
"startLine": 511,
|
||||
"startChar": 71,
|
||||
"endLine": 511,
|
||||
"endChar": 80
|
||||
},
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "9971e461_543ce7cf",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/backlog/nova-dynamic-cpus.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 570,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 4393
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2024-01-24T15:50:34Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "I\u0027m not sure how I feel about changing this. For a single-vendor cloud, Nova is just IaaS and multi-tenancy constraints like this are just \"limitations\" to the operator. I agree that we don\u0027t do this sort of thing today, and that doing in the future is a fundamental change in how nova behaves (both from the multitenancy concern _and_ the PoV that we \"don\u0027t do orchestration.\").",
|
||||
"revId": "8487cb0bd57caf9f881457b38a5e77a6e88733cd",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue