Hi, I agree with Phil. This has been on the agenda of the scheduling meetings for over a month now. Thanks Gary
On 10/15/13 2:40 PM, "Day, Phil" <philip....@hp.com> wrote: >Hi Alex, > >My understanding is that the 17th is the deadline and that Russell needs >to be planning the sessions from that point onwards. If we delay in >giving him our suggestions until the 22nd I think it would be too late. > We've had weeks if not months now of discussing possible scheduler >sessions, I really don't see why we can't deliver a recommendation on how >best to fit into the 3 committed slots on or before the 17th. > >Phil > >On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Alex Glikson <glik...@il.ibm.com> wrote: >> IMO, the three themes make sense, but I would suggest waiting until >> the submission deadline and discuss at the following IRC meeting on the >>22nd. >> Maybe there will be more relevant proposals to consider. >> >> Regards, >> Alex >> >> P.S. I plan to submit a proposal regarding scheduling policies, and >> maybe one more related to theme #1 below >> >> >> >> From: "Day, Phil" <philip....@hp.com> >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List >> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, >> Date: 14/10/2013 06:50 PM >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Scheduler meeting and Icehouse >>Summit >> ________________________________ >> >> >> >> Hi Folks, >> >> In the weekly scheduler meeting we've been trying to pull together a >> consolidated list of Summit sessions so that we can find logical >> groupings and make a more structured set of sessions for the limited >> time available at the summit. >> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IceHouse-Nova-Scheduler-Sessions >> >> With the deadline for sessions being this Thursday 17th, tomorrows IRC >> meeting is the last chance to decide which sessions we want to combine / >> prioritize. Russell has indicated that a starting assumption of three >> scheduler sessions is reasonable, with any extras depending on what >> else is submitted. >> >> I've matched the list on the Either pad to submitted sessions below, >> and added links to any other proposed sessions that look like they are >>related. >> >> >> 1) Instance Group Model and API >> Session Proposal: >> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/190 >> >> 2) Smart Resource Placement: >> Session Proposal: >> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/33 >> Possibly related sessions: >>Resource >> optimization service for nova >> (http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/201) >> >> 3) Heat and Scheduling and Software, Oh My!: >> Session Proposal: >> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/113 >> >> 4) Generic Scheduler Metrics and Celiometer: >> Session Proposal: >> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/218 >> Possibly related sessions: Making Ceilometer and Nova >> play nice http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/73 >> >> 5) Image Properties and Host Capabilities >> Session Proposal: NONE >> >> 6) Scheduler Performance: >> Session Proposal: NONE >> Possibly related Sessions: Rethinking Scheduler Design >> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/34 >> >> 7) Scheduling Across Services: >> Session Proposal: NONE >> >> 8) Private Clouds: >> Session Proposal: >> http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/228 >> >> 9) Multiple Scheduler Policies: >> Session Proposal: NONE >> >> >> The proposal from last weeks meeting was to use the three slots for: >> - Instance Group Model and API (1) >> - Smart Resource Placement (2) >> - Performance (6) >> >> However, at the moment there doesn't seem to be a session proposed to >> cover the performance work ? >> >> It also seems to me that the Group Model and Smart Placement are >> pretty closely linked along with (3) (which says it wants to combine 1 >> & 2 into the same topic) , so if we only have three slots available >>then these look like >> logical candidates for consolidating into a single session. That >>would >> free up a session to cover the generic metrics (4) and Ceilometer - >> where a lot of work in Havana stalled because we couldn't get a >> consensus on the way forward. The third slot would be kept for >> performance - which based on the lively debate in the scheduler >>meetings I'm assuming will still be submitted >> as a session. Private Clouds isn't really a scheduler topic, so I >>suggest >> it takes its chances as a general session. Hence my revised proposal >> for the three slots is: >> >> i) Group Scheduling / Smart Placement / Heat and Scheduling (1), >> (2), (3), & (7) >> - How do you schedule something more complex that a >> single VM ? >> >> ii) Generalized scheduling metrics / celiometer integration (4) >> - How do we extend the set of resources a scheduler >> can use to make its decisions ? >> - How do we make this work with / compatible with >> Celiometer ? >> >> iii) Scheduler Performance (6) >> >> In that way we will at least give airtime to all of the topics. If >>a 4th >> scheduler slot becomes available then we could break up the first >> session into two parts. >> >> Thoughts welcome here or in tomorrows IRC meeting. >> >> Cheers, >> Phil >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > > > >-- >-Debo~ > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >_______________________________________________ >OpenStack-dev mailing list >OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
