Add project/user association to placement

Registered by melanie witt

This cycle we are changing the quota system to count resources to check
quota instead of tracking usage and reservations separately. As things
currently stand, we must query cell tables to count things like cores
and ram to check against quota limits. There are a couple of problems
with the current approach:

  1. Querying all cells for instances owned by a project and summing their
     cores and ram counts is not efficient.
  2. Quota usage becomes effectively "freed" if contact with one or more
     cells is lost for any reason, until the cells return.

To address these problems, we propose adding project and user associations
to placement for consumers.

Blueprint information

Status:
Complete
Approver:
Sylvain Bauza
Priority:
Medium
Drafter:
melanie witt
Direction:
Approved
Assignee:
melanie witt
Definition:
Approved
Series goal:
Accepted for pike
Implementation:
Implemented
Milestone target:
milestone icon pike-3
Started by
Matt Riedemann
Completed by
Matt Riedemann

Related branches

Sprints

Whiteboard

Gerrit topic: https://review.openstack.org/#q,topic:bp/placement-project-user,n,z

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/453030
    Add project/user association to placement

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/454352
    Amend spec for placement project/user association

Gerrit topic: https://review.openstack.org/#q,topic:placement-project-user,n,z

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/469633
    Add database migration and model for consumers

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/469634
    WIP Add project_id and user_id to PUT /allocations

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/469635
    WIP Add GET /usages

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/470645
    placement: use separate tables for projects/users

All changes merged as of June 24, 2017. Marking this complete for Pike. -- mriedem 20170625

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/477477
    Add missing microversion documentation

Addressed by: https://review.openstack.org/477478
    placement: Make API history doc more consistent

(?)

Work Items

This blueprint contains Public information 
Everyone can see this information.

Subscribers

No subscribers.