What if you specified multiple storage tags that mapped to different storage vendors' storage?
I'm not sure how they could enter fields for all of those vendors if you can only select one vendors' fields. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > I'm not sure how that would work if the user picks SolidFire, but then > specifies a Storage Tag that doesn't include SolidFire. > > As far as I know, Min, Max, and Burst is a superset for current storage > vendors that do provisioned IOPS of some sort. > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Mike, >> I do not think users can select only one of them, as they are implemented >> on different sides. >> Have you investigated the parameters other storage devices support, >> besides >> min/max/burst IOPS? You'd better add all possible fields in your >> implementation. >> >> What do you think about this? >> Hypersivor IOPS is fixed, and there is a drop-down box which includes all >> supported storage vendors. >> If users select "SolidFire", min/max/burst IOPS will appear. >> If users select other vendors, relevant fields will appear. >> Actually I still insist that it is better to add the storage-related >> fields >> in another table. >> >> -Wei >> >> >> 2013/6/10 Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> >> >> > Here is my thinking: >> > >> > Two radio buttons (whatever we want to call them): >> > >> > 1) Hypervisor IOPS >> > 2) Storage IOPS >> > >> > Leave them both un-checked by default. >> > >> > If the user checks one or the other, the relevant fields appear. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: >> > >> > > What do you think, Wei? >> > > >> > > Should we come up with a way for only one feature (yours or mine) to >> be >> > > used at a time on the new Disk Offering dialog? >> > > >> > > Since most storage-side provisioned IOPS don't break it down into >> > separate >> > > read and write categories, I think that's the way to go (only one >> feature >> > > or the other). >> > > >> > > Any suggestions from a usability standpoint how we want to implement >> > this? >> > > It could be as simple as a radio button to turn on your feature and >> mine >> > > off or vice versa. >> > > >> > > Thanks! >> > > >> > > >> > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 1:33 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > >> Mike, >> > >> >> > >> I agree -- I can't image a situation where you would want to use IOPS >> > >> provisioned by both the hypervisor and storage. There are two >> points of >> > >> concern -- the UI and the management server. We have to ensure that >> the >> > >> user can't create a VM from a compute/disk offering combination where >> > >> hypervisor throttled I/O would contradict/conflict with storage >> > provisioned >> > >> IOPS. I think this functional conflict must be resolved in the >> > management >> > >> server to ensure that API calls are properly validated with a UX that >> > >> avoids user confusion. Have Wei and you worked out an approach to >> > >> resolving this conflict? >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> -John >> > >> >> > >> On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:24 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> >> > >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> > Wei has sent me the screen shots. >> > >> > >> > >> > I don't support Compute Offerings for 4.2, so that's not an issue >> > here. >> > >> > >> > >> > I do support Disk Offerings. >> > >> > >> > >> > It looks like Wei has added four new fields to the Disk Offering. >> > >> > >> > >> > I have added three (Min, Max, and Burst IOPS). >> > >> > >> > >> > We just need to decide if we should toggle between his and mine. >> > >> > >> > >> > I doubt a user would want to use both features at the same time. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:30 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com >> > >> > >> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> >> Mike, >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Have Wei and you figured out the system level as well (e.g. >> allowing >> > >> >> either storage provisioned IOPS or hypervisor throttling, but no >> > both)? >> > >> >> >> > >> >> Thanks, >> > >> >> -John >> > >> >> >> > >> >> On Jun 10, 2013, at 2:12 PM, Mike Tutkowski < >> > >> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> >> >> > >> >>> Perhaps Wei could send me some screen shots of what he's changed >> in >> > >> the >> > >> >> GUI >> > >> >>> for his feature? >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> Thanks! >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Burwell < >> jburw...@basho.com> >> > >> >> wrote: >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>>> Wei, >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Have Mike Tutkowski and you reconciled the potential conflict >> > >> between a >> > >> >>>> throttled I/O VM and a provisioned IOPs volume? If so, what >> > solution >> > >> >> did >> > >> >>>> you select? >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> Thanks, >> > >> >>>> -John >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> On Jun 10, 2013, at 1:54 PM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>>> Guys, >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into master. >> > >> >>>>> Please review the code on https://reviews.apache.org/r/11782 >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> If nobody object, I will merge into master in 72 hours. >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> -Wei >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>> 2013/5/30 Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> >> > >> >>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> Hi, >> > >> >>>>>> I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into master. >> > >> >>>>>> If nobody object, I will merge into master in 48 hours. >> > >> >>>>>> The purpose is : >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> Virtual machines are running on the same storage device (local >> > >> storage >> > >> >>>> or >> > >> >>>>>> share strage). Because of the rate limitation of device (such >> as >> > >> >> iops), >> > >> >>>> if >> > >> >>>>>> one VM has large disk operation, it may affect the disk >> > >> performance of >> > >> >>>>>> other VMs running on the same storage device. >> > >> >>>>>> It is neccesary to set the maximum rate and limit the disk >> I/O of >> > >> VMs. >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> The feature includes: >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> (1) set the maximum rate of VMs (in disk_offering, and global >> > >> >>>>>> configuration) >> > >> >>>>>> (2) change the maximum rate of VMs >> > >> >>>>>> (3) limit the disk rate (total bps and iops) >> > >> >>>>>> JIRA ticket: >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192 >> > >> >>>>>> FS (I will update later) : >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling >> > >> >>>>>> Merge check list :- >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> * Did you check the branch's RAT execution success? >> > >> >>>>>> Yes >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> * Are there new dependencies introduced? >> > >> >>>>>> No >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> * What automated testing (unit and integration) is included in >> > the >> > >> new >> > >> >>>>>> feature? >> > >> >>>>>> Unit tests are added. >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> * What testing has been done to check for potential >> regressions? >> > >> >>>>>> (1) set the bytes rate and IOPS rate on CloudStack UI. >> > >> >>>>>> (2) VM operations, including >> > >> >>>>>> deploy, stop, start, reboot, destroy, expunge. migrate, >> restore >> > >> >>>>>> (3) Volume operations, including >> > >> >>>>>> Attach, Detach >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> To review the code, you can try >> > >> >>>>>> git diff c30057635d04a2396f84c588127d7ebe42e503a7 >> > >> >>>>>> f2e5591b710d04cc86815044f5823e73a4a58944 >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> Best regards, >> > >> >>>>>> Wei >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>>>> [1] >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling >> > >> >>>>>> [2] refs/heads/disk_io_throttling >> > >> >>>>>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< >> > >> >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071 >> > >> >(CLOUDSTACK-1301 >> > >> >> - >> > >> >>>> VM Disk I/O Throttling) >> > >> >>>>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> >> > >> >>> -- >> > >> >>> *Mike Tutkowski* >> > >> >>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >> > >> >>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >> > >> >>> o: 303.746.7302 >> > >> >>> Advancing the way the world uses the >> > >> >>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >> > >> >>> *™* >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > *Mike Tutkowski* >> > >> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >> > >> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >> > >> > o: 303.746.7302 >> > >> > Advancing the way the world uses the >> > >> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >> > >> > *™* >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > *Mike Tutkowski* >> > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >> > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >> > > o: 303.746.7302 >> > > Advancing the way the world uses the cloud< >> > http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >> > > *™* >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > *Mike Tutkowski* >> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* >> > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com >> > o: 303.746.7302 >> > Advancing the way the world uses the >> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> >> > *™* >> > >> > > > > -- > *Mike Tutkowski* > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > o: 303.746.7302 > Advancing the way the world uses the > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > *™* > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> *™*
