[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[placement][ptg] Resource Provider Partitioning

Does this have anything to do with the topic of separate projects owning
different resource providers in the same tree? Where "owning" indicates
responsibility for creation, positioning (i.e. where in the tree, who's
the parent), and inventory management, but *not* allocations.

This was in the context of e.g. neutron owning bandwidth RPs, or cyborg
owning FPGA RPs.

In Denver (possibly twice) we talked about the various actors actually
needing to know this. I don't remember exactly why - was it only so that
each actor knows not to stomp on providers it doesn't own? And is that a
problem that needs a solution other than each actor just knowing which
providers it's responsible for and leaving anything else alone?

If this is unrelated to the subject, please kill this subthread.