On 04/10/14 at 11:33pm, Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
Andrew,
Thank you for clarification!
On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Laski <andrew.la...@rackspace.com>wrote:
The scheduler as it currently exists is a placement engine. There is
sufficient complexity in the scheduler with just that responsibility so I
would prefer to see anything that's making runtime decisions separated out.
Perhaps it could just be another service within the scheduler project once
it's broken out, but I think it will be beneficial to have a clear
distinction between placement decisions and runtime monitoring.
Do you think that auto-scaling could be considered another facet of this
'runtime monitoring' functionality? Now it is a combination of Heat and
Ceilometer. Does it worth moving to hypothetical runtime mobility service
as well?
Auto-scaling is certainly a facet of runtime monitoring. But
auto-scaling performs actions based on a set of user defined rules and
is very visible while the enhancements proposed below are intended to
benefit deployers and be very invisible to users. So the set of
allowable actions is very constrained compared to what auto-scaling can
do.
In my opinion what's being proposed doesn't seem to fit cleanly into
any existing service, so perhaps it could start as a standalone entity.
Then once there's something that can be used and demoed a proper place
might suggest itself, or it might make sense to keep it separate.
--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh
--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau....@gmail.com> wrote:
@Oleg, Till now, I'm not sure the target of Gantt, is it for initial
placement policy or run time policy or both, can you help clarify?
@Henrique, not sure if you know IBM PRS (Platform Resource Scheduler)
[1],
we have finished the "dynamic scheduler" in our Icehouse version (PRS
2.2),
it has exactly the same feature as your described, we are planning a live
demo for this feature in Atlanta Summit. I'm also writing some document
for
run time policy which will cover more run time policies for OpenStack,
but
not finished yet. (My shame for the slow progress). The related blueprint
is [2], you can also get some discussion from [3]
[1]
http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=
AN&subtype=CA&htmlfid=897/ENUS213-590&appname=USN
[2]
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/resource-
optimization-service
[3] http://markmail.org/~jaylau/OpenStack-DRS
Thanks.
2014-04-09 23:21 GMT+08:00 Oleg Gelbukh <ogelb...@mirantis.com>:
Henrique,
You should check out Gantt project [1], it could be exactly the place to
implement such features. It is a generic cross-project Scheduler as a
Service forked from Nova recently.
[1] https://github.com/openstack/gantt
--
Best regards,
Oleg Gelbukh
Mirantis Labs
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Henrique Truta <
henriquecostatr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello, everyone!
I am currently a graduate student and member of a group of contributors
to OpenStack. We believe that a dynamic scheduler could improve the
efficiency of an OpenStack cloud, either by rebalancing nodes to
maximize
performance or to minimize the number of active hosts, in order to
minimize
energy costs. Therefore, we would like to propose a dynamic scheduling
mechanism to Nova. The main idea is using the Ceilometer information
(e.g.
RAM, CPU, disk usage) through the ceilometer-client and dinamically
decide
whether a instance should be live migrated.
This might me done as a Nova periodic task, which will be executed
every
once in a given period or as a new independent project. In both cases,
the
current Nova scheduler will not be affected, since this new scheduler
will
be pluggable. We have done a search and found no such initiative in the
OpenStack BPs. Outside the community, we found only a recent IBM
announcement for a similiar feature in one of its cloud products.
A possible flow is: In the new scheduler, we periodically make a call
to
Nova, get the instance list from a specific host and, for each
instance, we
make a call to the ceilometer-client (e.g. $ ceilometer statistics -m
cpu_util -q resource=$INSTANCE_ID) and then, according to some specific
parameters configured by the user, analyze the meters and do the proper
migrations.
Do you have any comments or suggestions?
--
Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta
_______________________________________________
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
--
Thanks,
Jay
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
