Andrey, Dmitriy I've just realized that CPU overcommitment setting is defined not for Controllers but for Compute nodes, and may differ on per-node basis. So, the 2nd "harm" example that I exposed a few emails ago (with failed and redeployed controller resulting in inconsistent overcommitment behavior) is irrelevant.
With this in mind, 3rd example is even worse :) 3) User goes through architecture workshop and capacity planning exercise, decides on CPU overcommit rates he/she will use for OpenStack cloud. User deploys the cloud with, let's say, 20+ compute nodes. Now, w/o CPU overcommit setting on GUI, User will: - get a cloud that's inconsistent with decisions made during planning - be not aware of this - GUI did not point user to a need of specifying this setting - be frustrated and put under risk - if the cloud is deployed with real workloads the compute nodes will soon become over provisioned and unreliable due to default Fuel setting (prod KVM clouds often use super-soft overcommit setting, or no overcommit at all) - finally - *user will have to MANUALLY specify and maintain overcommit setting across 20+ compute nodes.* Doesn't sound like a good UX from cloud lifecycle management app :) - Fuel will quickly be ditched in favor of config management tool. So, my proposal on CPU overcommitment setting is following: - Expose it in Wizard on hypervisor selection screen - To simplify things initially - implement the setting as a drop-down list, with 2 options: -- No CPU overcommitment (1:1) -- Light CPU overcommitment (3:1) -- Heavy CPU overcommitment (6:1) --- default setting in BOM calculator --- Regards, Dmitriy On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Andrey Danin <[email protected]> wrote: > I think, we can add to openstack.yaml a special tag "advanced" to every > advanced parameter, and UI can hide all such parameters for every group > under the button "show more options". Also we can add the "expand all > hidden options" button at the top of the tab. I don't think it's hard to > implement. > > Let's wait an opinion of UI team. > On Jun 24, 2014 1:58 PM, "Meg McRoberts" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Jesse and others make a very good point. The Settings screen has already >> become a real mess >> that needs to be split up and organized a bit. I'm told that the serious >> restructuring should come >> after we implement the plug-ins scheme (currently planned for 6.0). And >> each section definitely >> needs an "Advanced" section for configurations that aren't routine. >> >> So do we wait to restructure the "Settings" screen until the plug-ins >> scheme is implemented? I >> think breaking it up into sub-sections would make it more usable in the >> meantime but I don't know >> if it's worth the effort to do that ahead of the plug-ins. >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Jesse Pretorius < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 23 June 2014 23:02, Dmitry Borodaenko <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Adding a configuration variable that can easily be changed after >>>> deployment is completed into Fuel is a slippery slope, you risk >>>> spamming the already overcrowded Fuel settings page with dozens of >>>> trivial (and not so trivial) options from every OpenStack component. >>>> >>> >>> While I agree, the fact of the matter is that Fuel facilitates the >>> deployment of configuration to all nodes in the environment in a consistent >>> manner. This is essential to deploy a reliable and supportable environment. >>> >>> In order to maintain the simplicity of the UI, but also provide access >>> to OpenStack's customisable configuration, why not do something like add an >>> 'advanced' button into the UI. Under there, the additional options can be >>> provided, and things that are already 'Advanced' (like the scheduler, the >>> Ceph replication factor, etc) can move under the 'Advanced' button for each >>> section. >>> >>> An additional very beneficial feature in the Advanced section would be >>> to allow any arbitrary key-value pairs for any settings that a user may >>> wish to deploy into the configuration files for the appropriate system (eg: >>> nova.conf). The user can be warned that these will not be validated and >>> that they are used at the user's own risk. This can allow any number of >>> OpenStack underlying features to be used without requiring a specific UI >>> for it. >>> >>> -- >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >>> Post to : [email protected] >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
