On 9/20/2017 5:17 AM, Georgios Kaklamanos wrote:
Hello,

Usecase: We have to deploy instances that belong in different domains,
to different compute hosts.

Does anyone else have the same usecase? If so, how did you implement
it?

[The rest of the mail is a more detailed explanation on the question:
what have we tried and probable solutions that we though -- but not
yet implemented.]

First, thanks for starting this discussion upstream rather than just assuming you have to use an out of tree filter.


* Details

In our Openstack Deployment (Mitaka), we have to support 3 different
domains (besides the default). We need a way to separate the compute
hosts in three groups (aggregates), so that VMs that belong to users
of domain A, start in group A, etc. Initially we assume that each
compute host will belong only to one group, but that might change.

We have looked at the nova filter scheduler [1] and on the
Aggregate_Multitenacy_Isolation filter [2], which is doing what we
want but it works on project level (as demonstrated here [3]). Given
that in one of our domains, we'll have at least 200 projects, we'd
prefer to leave this as a last choice.

Modifying the above filter to make the check based on the "domain",
isn't possible. The object that the filter receives, and contains the
information, is the RequestSpec Object [4]. The information contained
in its fields, doesn't include the domain_id attribute.

* Possible solutions that we've thought of:

1. Write our own filter: Modify a filter to contain a call to
    keystone, where it would send the project_id, and get back it's
    domain. But this feels more like a hack than a proper solution. And
    it might require storing the admin credentials to the node that the
    filters are running (controller?), which we'd like to avoid.

Isn't the domain_id in the RequestContext somewhere? That's the thing that holds the user token so I'd expect it has information about the domain that the project is in.

https://github.com/openstack/oslo.context/blob/2.19.0/oslo_context/context.py#L180-L182


2. Make the separation on another level (project/flavor/image):
    Besides the isolation per project, we could also isolate the hosts,
    by providing different images / flavors to the different
    users. There are available filters for that (image_props_filter
    [6]) , (aggregate_instance_extra_specs [7]). But again, due to the
    high number of projects, this would not scale well.

Agree that this sounds complicated and therefore will be error-prone.


3. Modify the RequestSpec object: Finally, we could include the
    domain_id field on the object, then modify the
    Aggregate_Multitenacy_Isolation filter, to work on that. Of course
    this would be the most elegant solution. However, (besides not
    knowing how to do that), we don't know what kind of implication
    that will have or how to package / deploy it.

Shouldn't have to do this if the request context has the domain in it. However, the request context isn't persisted but the request spec is, so if you needed the request spec later for other operations, like migrating the instance, then you might want to persist the domain. But then you probably get into other issues, like can the user/project move to another domain in Keystone? If so, what do you do about your host aggregate policy in Nova since Nova isn't going to be tracking that Keystone change. Maybe there is a policy rule in keystone that you can disable updating a user/project domain once it's set?



Is anyone having the same usecase? How would you go about solving it?

It's interesting, since we though that this would be a common usecase,
but as far as I've searched, I only found one request about this
functionality in a mailing list from 2013 [8], but didn't seem to have
progressed.

Thank you for your time,
George


[1]:https://docs.openstack.org/nova/latest/user/filter-scheduler.html
[2]:https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/aggregate_multitenancy_isolation.py
[3]:https://www.brad-x.com/2016/01/01/dedicate-compute-hosts-to-projects/
[4]:http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/mitaka/implemented/request-spec-object-mitaka.html#
[5]:https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/objects/request_spec.py#L46
[6]:https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/image_props_filter.py
[7]:https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/aggregate_instance_extra_specs.py
[8]:https://lists.launchpad.net/openstack/msg23275.html




_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
openstack-operat...@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



--

Thanks,

Matt

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to