On 10/20/2014 08:00 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> One of the big goals for the Kilo cycle by users and developers of the
> cells functionality within Nova is to get it to a point where it can be
> considered a first class citizen of Nova.  Ultimately I think this comes
> down to getting it tested by default in Nova jobs, and making it easy
> for developers to work with.  But there's a lot of work to get there. 
> In order to raise awareness of this effort, and get the conversation
> started on a few things, I've summarized a little bit about cells and
> this effort below.
> Goals:
> Testing of a single cell setup in the gate.
> Feature parity.
> Make cells the default implementation.  Developers write code once and
> it works for  cells.
> Ultimately the goal is to improve maintainability of a large feature
> within the Nova code base.

Thanks for the write-up Andrew! Some thoughts/questions below. Looking
forward to the discussion on some of these topics, and would be happy to
review the code once we get to that point.

> Feature gaps:
> Host aggregates
> Security groups
> Server groups
> Shortcomings:
> Flavor syncing
>     This needs to be addressed now.
> Cells scheduling/rescheduling
> Instances can not currently move between cells
>     These two won't affect the default one cell setup so they will be
> addressed later.
> What does cells do:
> Schedule an instance to a cell based on flavor slots available.
> Proxy API requests to the proper cell.
> Keep a copy of instance data at the global level for quick retrieval.
> Sync data up from a child cell to keep the global level up to date.
> Simplifying assumptions:
> Cells will be treated as a two level tree structure.

Are we thinking of making this official by removing code that actually
allows cells to be an actual tree of depth N? I am not sure if doing so
would be a win, although it does complicate the RPC/Messaging/State code
a bit, but if it's not being used, even though a nice generalization,
why keep it around?

> Plan:
> Fix flavor breakage in child cell which causes boot tests to fail.
> Currently the libvirt driver needs flavor.extra_specs which is not
> synced to the child cell.  Some options are to sync flavor and extra
> specs to child cell db, or pass full data with the request.
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126620/1 offers a means of passing full
> data with the request.
> Determine proper switches to turn off Tempest tests for features that
> don't work with the goal of getting a voting job.  Once this is in place
> we can move towards feature parity and work on internal refactorings.
> Work towards adding parity for host aggregates, security groups, and
> server groups.  They should be made to work in a single cell setup, but
> the solution should not preclude them from being used in multiple
> cells.  There needs to be some discussion as to whether a host aggregate
> or server group is a global concept or per cell concept.

Have there been any previous discussions on this topic? If so I'd really
like to read up on those to make sure I understand the pros and cons
before the summit session.

> Work towards merging compute/api.py and compute/cells_api.py so that
> developers only need to make changes/additions in once place.  The goal
> is for as much as possible to be hidden by the RPC layer, which will
> determine whether a call goes to a compute/conductor/cell.
> For syncing data between cells, look at using objects to handle the
> logic of writing data to the cell/parent and then syncing the data to
> the other.

Some of that work has been done already, although in a somewhat ad-hoc
fashion, were you thinking of extending objects to support this natively
(whatever that means), or do we continue to inline the code in the
existing object methods.

> A potential migration scenario is to consider a non cells setup to be a
> child cell and converting to cells will mean setting up a parent cell
> and linking them.  There are periodic tasks in place to sync data up
> from a child already, but a manual kick off mechanism will need to be
> added.
> Future plans:
> Something that has been considered, but is out of scope for now, is that
> the parent/api cell doesn't need the same data model as the child cell. 
> Since the majority of what it does is act as a cache for API requests,
> it does not need all the data that a cell needs and what data it does
> need could be stored in a form that's optimized for reads.
> Thoughts?
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

OpenStack-dev mailing list

Reply via email to