Comment 16 for bug 1545092

> I don't think we want to put rate limiting into glance

I'd be ok with adding something like the rate limiting middleware that exists in other projects in the future -- it could be convenient for some use cases.

But I don't think it's needed to address the rate limiting side of this bug. Deployers can BYORL (bring your own rate limiter).

@Brian

What do you think is needed here to fix? Is https://review.openstack.org/#/c/244573 enough? (It limits the number of images a user can have, minus 'killed' and 'deleted' images.)

We could try to specifically limit 'queued' images. eg have a separate total for that. But I'm not 100% sure if that's useful or not. Users could still have lots of active zero size images.