On 30/01/14 15:53, Matt Wagner wrote:
On 1/30/14, 5:26 AM, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
Hi all,

I've seen some confusion regarding the homogenous hardware support as
the first step for the tripleo UI. I think it's time to make sure we're
all on the same page.

Here's what I think is not controversial:

1. Build the UI and everything underneath to work with homogenous
hardware in the Icehouse timeframe
2. Figure out how to support heterogenous hardware and do that (may or
may not happen within Icehouse)

The first option implies having a single nova flavour that will match
all the boxes we want to work with. It may or may not be surfaced in the
UI (I think that depends on our undercloud installation story).

Now, someone (I don't honestly know who or when) proposed a slight step
up from point #1 that would allow people to try the UI even if their
hardware varies slightly:

1.1 Treat similar hardware configuration as equal

The way I understand it is this: we use a scheduler filter that wouldn't
do a strict match on the hardware in Ironic. E.g. if our baremetal
flavour said 16GB ram and 1TB disk, it would also match a node with 24GB
ram or 1.5TB disk.

The UI would still assume homogenous hardware and treat it as such. It's
just that we would allow for small differences.

This *isn't* proposing we match ARM to x64 or offer a box with 24GB RAM
when the flavour says 32. We would treat the flavour as a lowest common
denominator.

Does Nova already handle this? Or is it built on exact matches?

It's doing an exact match as far as I know. This would likely involve writing a custom filter for nova scheduler and updating nova.conf accordingly.


I guess my question is -- what is the benefit of doing this? Is it just
so people can play around with it? Or is there a lasting benefit
long-term? I can see one -- match to the closest, but be willing to give
me more than I asked for if that's all that's available. Is there any
downside to this being permanent behavior?

Absolutely not a long term thing. This is just to let people play around with the MVP until we have the proper support for heterogenous hardware in.

It's just an idea that would increase the usefulness of the first version and should be trivial to implement and take out.

If neither is the case or if we will in fact manage to have a proper heterogenous hardware support early (in Icehouse), it doesn't make any sense to do this.


I think the lowest-common-denominator match will be familiar to
sysadmins, too. Want to do RAID striping across a 500GB and a 750GB
disk? You'll get a striped 500GB volume.



_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to