Jump to: navigation, search

AdministrativeVMs

Revision as of 22:19, 17 April 2011 by VishvanandaIshaya (talk)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
  • Launchpad Entry: NovaSpec:administrative-vms
  • Created: 04/17/2011
  • Contributors:

Summary

Create a standard way of defining administrative vms / containers. These are vms that can plug into a project network (or management network) but are managed by the provider instead of the end user.

Release Note

Rationale

Currently we have one type of administrative VM that is handled through custom code paths (pipelib.py) . VMs of this nature are very useful for providing various cloud services such as load balancing, queuing systems, databases, load balancers, network bridging components, etc. We need a consistent way to define these administrative vms, as well as apis for controlling them. This common definition should support both containers and traditional vms, perhaps even colocated on the same infrastructure.

User stories

Assumptions

Design

You can have subsections that better describe specific parts of the issue.

Implementation

This section should describe a plan of action (the "how") to implement the changes discussed. Could include subsections like:

UI Changes

Should cover changes required to the UI, or specific UI that is required to implement this

Code Changes

Code changes should include an overview of what needs to change, and in some cases even the specific details.

Migration

Include:

  • data migration, if any
  • redirects from old URLs to new ones, if any
  • how users will be pointed to the new way of doing things, if necessary.

Test/Demo Plan

This need not be added or completed until the specification is nearing beta.

Unresolved issues

This should highlight any issues that should be addressed in further specifications, and not problems with the specification itself; since any specification with problems cannot be approved.

BoF agenda and discussion

Use this section to take notes during the BoF; if you keep it in the approved spec, use it for summarising what was discussed and note any options that were rejected.