openstack-nova defaults in Fedora 17
pbrady at redhat.com
Mon Feb 20 16:30:42 UTC 2012
On 02/20/2012 03:51 PM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> For OpenStack Essex in Fedora 17, I thought it was worth discussing:
> 1) Should we switch to the new --config-file format by default? I
> think we discussed this briefly before and decided we would. We
> should probably go ahead to have it settled in before the test day.
I think it makes sense to do this ASAP.
I tried and had some issues with it.
Are there specific commits I could cherry pick,
or will I wait for essex-4 which is supposed
to land on March 1st, 7 days before the test day.
> 2) I see we've added support for force_dhcp_release=True; should we
> make it the default?
I'm not sure of the implications. It seems dafe enough.
If the option is just to cater for systems without `dhcp_release`
then it's fairly redundant, as the availability of that could be
checked for at startup. Not that it would be the first redundant
option ever created :) I'll ask on the openstack list.
> 3) 'root_helper=sudo nova-rootwrap' is the default now, right? All
> the test cases still work fine? No user impact?
I ran through most of the test day cases with no issue.
> 4) 'rpc_backend=nova.rpc.impl_qpid' is also the default now? I think
> we had some debate about whether we should require any of the
> messaging libs by default? Did we come to a conclusion? My
> instinct it to require the default lib only
I discussed that with Russell who implemented the Qpid support,
and he made the point that you might not even want to run the
qpid broker on the same host as the nova services.
I intentionally didn't depend on an amqp server for now.
More information about the cloud