A "recycle bin" sounds like a nice solution to the problem. We could improve 
jclouds to clean up security groups but I believe having Brooklyn manage them 
is where we should be heading long term. The reason is that Brooklyn is 
starting to create security groups on its own (say through 
SharedLocationSecurityGroupCustomizer) so it can't rely on jclouds to clean 
them up.
It's not only security groups. It's the same for any other managed cloud 
resource (like private keys, disks, etc.). One thing that I'd like to have in 
the UI is an exhaustive list of items we've created in the cloud and that are 
expected to be cleaned up at some point. Making locations a first class object 
in Brooklyn sounds like part of the solution here.


> On 1.12.2016 г., at 14:14, Alex Heneveld <alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com> 
> wrote:
> This litter is irritating.  On the other hand we don't want application
> stops to wait an arbitrarily long time for sec groups to become deletable.
> I'd love to switch to a model where location instances become entities.
> Security groups could also become part of that, and managed explicitly in
> the runtime model.  "Stop" might then take a long time, or fail, but at
> least it's explicit...
> Or if we have some kind of internal "application" with management state, it
> might have a "recycling bin" and as part of "stop" we move  redundant but
> not-yet-deletable security groups there, and a policy there tries
> periodically to remove them.  This way it's transparent what we're doing,
> but doesn't get in the way of normal operation, and also doesn't leave
> litter behind.
> (BTW @jose for your use case maybe it's an option to tell brooklyn to use a
> pre-existing security group?)
> Best
> Alex
> On 1 December 2016 at 10:20, Geoff Macartney <
> geoff.macart...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote:
>> Note the PR "Factor security group code out into separate utility class"
>> [1] from last week, might be of some use here, but it just provides a basic
>> toolkit for security groups (not keys yet, but they could be added?).
>>    Factor out the functionality for security groups.
>>    Brings the create/delete and add/remove permissions functionality
>>    for security groups from JcloudsLocationSecurityGroupCustomizer
>>    out into its own class. The aim is to make it more convenient
>>    to write other customizers etc. that might need security groups.
>>    This is intended as nearly as possible as a behaviour-preserving
>>    change. I have permitted myself one change to the behaviour where
>>    this seemed sensible; the loop in runOperationWithRetry
>>    was effectively an infinite loop because of its 100 iteration
>>    exponential back-off, so I have changed this to a back-off that
>>    tries for about five minutes.
>> For the security group deletion, what do you think of the suggestion of
>> just changing `removeSecurityGroup` [2] such that `runOperationWithRetry`
>> will explicitly do an exponential back-off? (i.e. at present it retries
>> depending on the `isExceptionRetryable` value but it could override that.)
>> Or is it better to have an explicit long-lived service within Brooklyn
>> dedicated to that purpose?
>> Geoff
>> [1] https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/425
>> [2]
>> https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/blob/master/
>> locations/jclouds/src/main/java/org/apache/brooklyn/
>> location/jclouds/networking/SecurityGroupEditor.java#L114-L123
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 at 14:20 Aled Sage <aled.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Thanks for raising this Jose - sounds like some serious testing of
>>> Brooklyn going on as well!
>>> Richard's right: the AWS security groups seem to be eventually
>>> consistent. Anecdotally, it can take up to 15 minutes for the API to
>>> report that the security group is no longer in use. Within jclouds, we
>>> retry the check+deletion a few times and then move on (so the security
>>> group can be left behind). Given this is still happening, it means that
>>> the eventual consistency is still there.
>>> Improving things in jclouds is appealing, but tricky. The jclouds calls
>>> would have to block for a long time or leave threads behind to clean up
>>> after the delete request has returned. That would approach/philosophy of
>>> the jclouds library, I believe. Perhaps we could tweak the retry times
>>> though.
>>> ---
>>> Andrew Kennedy wrote about this quite a while ago, and said about a tool
>>> (based on jclouds) for deleting the security groups [1].
>>> I know that some customer-specific work has run with that approach to
>>> delete unused security groups periodically (that fit some naming
>>> convention, and have been unused for at least some configurable length
>>> of time).
>>> ---
>>> We could potentially incorporate the async cleanup within Brooklyn.
>>> I'm not sure whether that would just be background cleanup jobs within
>>> Brooklyn, or whether we'd somehow expose this on the Brooklyn API.
>>> What do your code changes look like for deleting the security groups and
>>> key-pairs?
>>> Aled
>>> [1]
>>> http://blog.abstractvisitorpattern.co.uk/2013/03/tidying-up-after-
>> jclouds.html
>>> On 30/11/2016 13:13, Richard Downer wrote:
>>>> Hi Jose,
>>>> This is challenging my memory somewhat, but I recall in the past that
>>>> jclouds had trouble with AWS security groups, because the AWS API would
>>>> report the security group as being "in use" and therefore undeletable,
>>> for
>>>> a considerable time after the VM using it was removed. So if there was
>> an
>>>> attempt to delete the SG shortly after the VM was deleted, AWS would
>> not
>>>> allow it.
>>>> I'm not sure if the situation has changed since then - either in the
>> way
>>>> jclouds/Brooklyn handles it, or if the AWS API can now handle an SG
>>> delete
>>>> like this.
>>>> So I think there's some mileage in investigating this further, but also
>>> in
>>>> establishing the facts about the AWS API, and the history of this
>> problem
>>>> (my memory is not reliable :-) before writing a lot of code!
>>>> And while I'm obviously happy to receive code contributions to
>> Brooklyn,
>>>> it's also worth considering if any fixes that may be needed may be
>> better
>>>> applied to the Apache jclouds project rather than here - then far more
>>>> people than the Brooklyn community would benefit.
>>>> Richard.
>>>> On 30 November 2016 at 09:40, Jose Carrasco <jo...@lcc.uma.es> wrote:
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>> During the last days I have provisioned about 1500 VM in AWS and
>>> Softlayer
>>>>> using Brooklyn. (I am researching about large cloud-application
>>>>> deployments).
>>>>> However, I found a little problem working with AWS. When a VM is
>>> created,
>>>>> security groups are also created, but when
>>>>> the VM is deleted, the related security groups are not deleted. It
>> was a
>>>>> problem for me, because the limit of the security group pool is
>>>>> 500, and when the pool is full, new VM can not be provisiones because
>> it
>>>>> is not possible to add another security group.
>>>>> Then, I think it could be good idea to allow security groups to be
>>> managed
>>>>> by Brooklyn. jclouds provides some interesting interfaces
>>>>> to manage security groups in a generic way, maintaing the current
>>>>> abstraction in JcloudsLocation and JcloudsMachineLocation.
>>>>> (Indeed, I already added to my code the capability of managing
>>> (deleting)
>>>>> security groups (and keyPairs).)
>>>>> does it make sense for you?
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>> Thanks a lot,
>>>>> Jose

Reply via email to