Hi, I don't think we can restrict Burst to SolidFire only because there really is no way to know that the Disk Offering will be serviced by SolidFire.
This really is a flaw with the way CloudStack handles storage tags. For example, the Disk Offering could use a storage tag that references SolidFire and, say, NetApp. For example, say the storage tag is simply "Fast". Both SolidFire and NetApp could have storage that supports this requirement to the admin's liking. In this situation, you don't know which vendor will actually have the volume deployed to it (so you don't know which subset of fields to have the admin fill out). I'm thinking we need to have a superset of the fields (Min, Max, and Bust) and the admin needs to know which vendors can satisfy the Disk Offering (listed with the storage tags field) and fill in the fields as is applicable. Let's say another vendor adds a field that SolidFire doesn't support. It would be available for entry and if the Disk Offering was deployed to SolidFire, I would ignore that field. On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Mike, > > Glad to see this. This is what I have questioned about. > > I accepted John's and your opnion that hypervisor IOPS and storage IOPS are > mutually exclusion. The way you mentioned is a good way to go. > > A small question is, will burst IOPS only appear when storage device is > SolidFire? > > -Wei > > > 2013/6/10 Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > > > My thinking is that Min and Max are industry standard and Burst is a new > > concept that could catch on. > > > > > > On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 2:29 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > wrote: > > > > > Wei, > > > > > > In this case, we can have the hypervisor or storage providing the > quality > > > of service guarantee. Naively, it seems reasonable to separate > > hypervisor > > > and storage QoS parameters and enforce mutually exclusion. Not only > does > > > this approach simplify a whole range of operations, it also avoids > > > reconciling the data models. The only question I have about the > storage > > > provision IOPS is whether or not "Burst IOPS" is an industry standard > or > > > vendor specific concept. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > -John > > > > > > On Jun 10, 2013, at 3:59 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> *™*
