On 10/22/2014 03:42 AM, Vineet Menon wrote:
On 22 October 2014 06:24, Tom Fifield <t...@openstack.org
On 22/10/14 03:07, Andrew Laski wrote:
> On 10/21/2014 04:31 AM, Nikola Đipanov wrote:
>> 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
>>> down to getting it tested by default in Nova jobs, and making
>>> for developers to work with. But there's a lot of work to get
>>> In order to raise awareness of this effort, and get the
>>> started on a few things, I've summarized a little bit about
>>> this effort below.
>>> Testing of a single cell setup in the gate.
>>> Feature parity.
>>> Make cells the default implementation. Developers write code
>>> it works for cells.
>>> Ultimately the goal is to improve maintainability of a large
>>> within the Nova code base.
>> Thanks for the write-up Andrew! Some thoughts/questions below.
>> forward to the discussion on some of these topics, and would be
>> review the code once we get to that point.
>>> Feature gaps:
>>> Host aggregates
>>> Security groups
>>> Server groups
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> Sync data up from a child cell to keep the global level up to
>>> Simplifying assumptions:
>>> Cells will be treated as a two level tree structure.
>> Are we thinking of making this official by removing code that
>> allows cells to be an actual tree of depth N? I am not sure if
>> would be a win, although it does complicate the
>> a bit, but if it's not being used, even though a nice
>> why keep it around?
> My preference would be to remove that code since I don't
> writing tests to ensure that functionality works and/or doesn't
> regress. But there's the challenge of not knowing if anyone is
> relying on that behavior. So initially I'm not creating a
> item to remove it. But I think it needs to be made clear that
> officially supported and may get removed unless a case is made for
> keeping it and work is put into testing it.
While I agree that N is a bit interesting, I have seen N=3 in
[central API]-->[state/region1]-->[state/region DC1]
What are the use cases for this deployment? Agreeably, root node runs
n-api along with horizon, key management etc. What components are
deployed in tier 2 and tier 3?
And AFAIK, currently, openstack cell deployment isn't even a tree but
DAG since, one cell can have multiple parents. Has anyone come up any
While there's nothing to prevent a cell from having multiple parents I
would be curious to know if this would actually work in practice, since
I can imagine a number of cases that might cause problems. And is there
a practical use for this?
Maybe we should start logging a warning when this is setup stating that
this is an unsupported(i.e. untested) configuration to start to codify
the design as that of a tree. At least for the initial scope of work I
think this makes sense, and if a case is made for a DAG setup that can
be done independently.
>>> 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
>>> specs to child cell db, or pass full data with the request.
>>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/126620/1 offers a means of
>>> data with the request.
>>> Determine proper switches to turn off Tempest tests for
>>> 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
>>> Work towards adding parity for host aggregates, security
>>> server groups. They should be made to work in a single cell
>>> the solution should not preclude them from being used in multiple
>>> cells. There needs to be some discussion as to whether a host
>>> or server group is a global concept or per cell concept.
>> Have there been any previous discussions on this topic? If so
>> like to read up on those to make sure I understand the pros and
>> before the summit session.
> The only discussion I'm aware of is some comments on
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/59101/ , though they mention a
> discussion at the Utah mid-cycle.
> The main con I'm aware of for defining these as global concepts
> there is no rescheduling capability in the cells scheduler. So if a
> build is sent to a cell with a host aggregate that can't fit that
> instance the build will fail even though there may be space in
> aggregate from a global perspective. That should be somewhat
> straightforward to address though.
> I think it makes sense to define these as global concepts. But
> are features that aren't used with cells yet so I haven't put a
> thought into potential arguments or cases for doing this one way or
Keeping aggregates local also poses problem in case when cells are
temporarily dead (out of system). Since top level doesn't have any
idea about local features including who all to contact for deletion of
a particular aggregate.
>>> Work towards merging compute/api.py and compute/cells_api.py
>>> developers only need to make changes/additions in once place.
>>> is for as much as possible to be hidden by the RPC layer,
>>> determine whether a call goes to a compute/conductor/cell.
>>> For syncing data between cells, look at using objects to
>>> logic of writing data to the cell/parent and then syncing the
>>> the other.
>> Some of that work has been done already, although in a somewhat
>> fashion, were you thinking of extending objects to support this
>> (whatever that means), or do we continue to inline the code in the
>> existing object methods.
> I would prefer to have some native support for this. In general
> considered authoritative at the global level or the cell level. For
> example, instance data is synced down from the global level to a
> cell(except for a few fields which are synced up) but a
> be synced up. I could imagine decorators that would specify how
> should be synced and handle that as transparently as possible.
>>> 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
>>> and linking them. There are periodic tasks in place to sync
>>> from a child already, but a manual kick off mechanism will
need to be
>>> 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
>>> Since the majority of what it does is act as a cache for API
>>> it does not need all the data that a cell needs and what data
>>> need could be stored in a form that's optimized for reads.
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev mailing list