On 07/14/2014 04:34 AM, Vaddi, Kiran Kumar wrote:
Hi,

In the Juno summit, it was discussed that the existing approach of
managing multiple VMware Clusters using a single nova compute service
is not preferred and the approach of one nova compute service
representing one cluster should be looked into.

Even this is outside what I consider to be best practice for Nova,
frankly. The model of scale-out inside Nova is to have a nova-compute
worker responsible for only the distinct set of compute resources that
are provided by a single bare metal node.

Unfortunately, with the introduction of the bare-metal driver in Nova,
as well as the "clustered hypervisors" like VCenter and Hyper-V, this
architectural design point was shot in the head, and now it is only
possible to scale the nova-compute <-> hypervisor communication layer
using a scale-up model instead of a scale-out model. This is a big deal,
and unfortunately, not enough discussion has been had around this, IMO.

The proposed blueprint(s) around this and the code patches I've seen are
moving Nova in the opposite direction it needs to go, IMHO.

We would like to retain the existing approach (till we have resolved
 the issues) for the following reasons:

1.Even though a single service is managing all the clusters,
logically it is still one compute per cluster. To the scheduler each
 cluster is represented as individual computes. Even in the driver
each cluster is represented separately.

How is this so? In Kanagaraj Manickam's proposed blueprint about this
[1], the proposed implementation would fork one process for each
hypervisor or cluster. However, the problem with this is that the
scheduler uses the single service record for the nova-compute worker to
determine whether or not the node is available to place resources on.
The servicegroup API would need to be refactored (rewritten, really) to
change its definition of a service to instead of being a single daemon,
now being a single process running within that daemon. Since the daemon
only responds to a single RPC target endpoint and rpc.call direct and
topic exchanges, all of that code would then need to be rewritten, or
code would need to be added to nova.manager to dispatch events sent to
the nova-compute's single RPC topic-exchange to one of the specific
processes that is responsible for a particular cluster.

In short, a huge chunk of code would need to be refactored in order to
make Nova's worldview amenable to the design choices of certain
clustered hypervisors. That, IMHO, is not something to be taken lightly,
and not something we should even consider without a REALLY good reason.
And the use case of "Openstack is an platform and its good to provide
flexibility in it to accommodate different needs." is not a really good
reason, IMO.

2.Since ESXi does not allow to run nova-compute service on the
hypervisor unlike KVM, the service has to be run externally on a
different server. Its easier from administration perspective to
manage a single service than multiple.

Why can't ESXi hosts not run the nova-compute service? Is it like the
XenServer driver that has a pitifully old version of Python (2.4) that
constrains the code that is possible to run on it? If so, then I don't
really think the poor constraints of the hypervisor dom0 should mean
that Nova should change its design principles to accomodate. The
XenServer driver uses custom agents to get around this issue, IIRC. Why
can't the VCenter driver?

3.Every connection to vCenter uses up ~140MB in the driver. If we
were to manage each cluster by an individual service the memory
consumed for 32 clusters will be high (~4GB). The newer versions
support 64 clusters!

The fact that each connection to vCenter uses 140MB of memory is
completely ridiculous. You can thank crappy SOAP for that, I believe.

That said, Nova should not be changing its design principles to
accommodate poor software of a driver.

It raises questions on why exactly folks are even using OpenStack at all
if they want to continue to use VCenter for host management, DRS, DPM,
and the like.

What advantage are they getting from OpenStack?

If the idea is to move off of expensive VCenter-licensed clusters and on
to a pure OpenStack infrastructure then, I don't see a point in
supporting *more* clustered hypervisor features in the driver code at
all. If the idea is to just "use what we know, don't rock the enterprise
IT boat", then why use OpenStack at all?

Look, I'm all for compatibility and transferability of different image
formats, different underlying hypervisors, and the dream of
interoperable clouds. I'm happy to see Nova support a wide variety of
disk image formats and hypervisor features (note: VCenter isn't a
hypervisor). I'm just do not suppor the idea that Nova needs to
change its fundamental design in order to support the *design* of other
host management platforms.

Best,
-jay

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/103054/

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

Reply via email to