Thanks Adrian for the clear clarification, clear now.

OK, we can focus on the right solution for the Docker back-end for now.

2015-02-10 15:35 GMT+08:00 Adrian Otto <adrian.o...@rackspace.com>:

>  I think it’s fair to assert that our generic scheduling interface should
> be based on Gantt. When that approaches a maturity point where it’s
> appropriate to leverage Gantt for container use cases, we should definitely
> consider switching to that. We should remain engaged in Gantt design
> decisions along the way to provide input.
>
>  In the short term we want a solution that works nicely for our Docker
> handler, because that’s an obvious functionality gap. The k8s handler
> already has a scheduler, so it can remain unchanged. Let’s not fall into a
> trap of over-engineering the scheduler, as that can be very tempting but
> yield limited value.
>
>  My suggestion is that we focus on the right solution for the Docker
> backend for now, and keep in mind that we want a general purpose scheduler
> in the future that could be adapted to work with a variety of container
> backends.
>
>  I want to recognize that Andrew’s thoughts are well considered to avoid
> rework and remain agnostic about container backends. Further, I think
> resource scheduling is the sort of problem domain that would lend itself
> well to a common solution with numerous use cases. If you look at the
> various ones that exist today, there are lots of similarities. We will find
> a multitude of scheduling algorithms, but probably not uniquely innovative
> scheduling interfaces. The interface to a scheduler will be relatively
> simple, and we could afford to collaborate a bit with the Gantt team to get
> solid ideas on the table for that. Let’s table that pursuit for now, and
> re-engage at our Midcycle meetup to explore that topic further. In the mean
> time, I’d like us to iterate on a suitable point solution for the Docker
> backend. A final iteration of that work may be to yank it completely, and
> replace it with a common scheduler at a later point. I’m willing to accept
> that tradeoff for a quick delivery of a Docker specific scheduler that we
> can learn from and iterate.
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  Adrian
>
>  On Feb 9, 2015, at 10:57 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  Thanks Steve, just want to discuss more for this. Then per Andrew's
> comments, we need a generic scheduling interface, but if our focus is
> native docker, then does this still needed? Thanks!
>
> 2015-02-10 14:52 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com>:
>
>>
>>
>>   From: Jay Lau <jay.lau....@gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 11:31 PM
>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
>>
>>    Steve,
>>
>>  So you mean we should focus on docker and k8s scheduler? I was a bit
>> confused, why do we need to care k8s? As the k8s cluster was created by
>> heat and once the k8s was created, the k8s has its own scheduler for
>> creating pods/service/rcs.
>>
>>  So seems we only need to care scheduler for native docker and ironic
>> bay, comments?
>>
>>
>>  Ya scheduler only matters for native docker.  Ironic bay can be k8s or
>> docker+swarm or something similar.
>>
>>  But yup, I understand your point.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> 2015-02-10 12:32 GMT+08:00 Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com>:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>   From: Joe Gordon <joe.gord...@gmail.com>
>>> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>>> questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Date: Monday, February 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM
>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
>>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Magnum] Scheduling for Magnum
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 6:00 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2/9/15, 3:02 AM, "Thierry Carrez" <thie...@openstack.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >Adrian Otto wrote:
>>>> >> [...]
>>>> >> We have multiple options for solving this challenge. Here are a few:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 1) Cherry pick scheduler code from Nova, which already has a working
>>>> a
>>>> >>filter scheduler design.
>>>> >> 2) Integrate swarmd to leverage its scheduler[2].
>>>> >> 3) Wait for the Gantt, when Nova Scheduler to be moved out of Nova.
>>>> >>This is expected to happen about a year from now, possibly sooner.
>>>> >> 4) Write our own filter scheduler, inspired by Nova.
>>>> >
>>>> >I haven't looked enough into Swarm to answer that question myself, but
>>>> >how much would #2 tie Magnum to Docker containers ?
>>>> >
>>>> >There is value for Magnum to support other container engines / formats
>>>> >(think Rocket/Appc) in the long run, so we should avoid early design
>>>> >choices that would prevent such support in the future.
>>>>
>>>> Thierry,
>>>> Magnum has an object type of a bay which represents the underlying
>>>> cluster
>>>> architecture used.  This could be kubernetes, raw docker, swarmd, or
>>>> some
>>>> future invention.  This way Magnum can grow independently of the
>>>> underlying technology and provide a satisfactory user experience dealing
>>>> with the chaos that is the container development world :)
>>>>
>>>
>>>  While I don't disagree with anything said here, this does sound a lot
>>> like https://xkcd.com/927/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Andrew had suggested offering a unified standard user experience
>>> and API.  I think that matches the 927 comic pretty well.  I think we
>>> should offer each type of system using APIs that are similar in nature but
>>> that offer the native features of the system.  In other words, we will
>>> offer integration across the various container landscape with OpenStack.
>>>
>>>  We should strive to be conservative and pragmatic in our systems
>>> support and only support container schedulers and container managers that
>>> have become strongly emergent systems.  At this point that is docker and
>>> kubernetes.  Mesos might fit that definition as well.  Swarmd and rocket
>>> are not yet strongly emergent, but they show promise of becoming so.  As a
>>> result, they are clearly systems we should be thinking about for our
>>> roadmap.  All of these systems present very similar operational models.
>>>
>>>  At some point competition will choke off new system design placing an
>>> upper bound on the amount of systems we have to deal with.
>>>
>>>  Regards
>>> -steve
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> We will absolutely support relevant container technology, likely through
>>>> new Bay formats (which are really just heat templates).
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> -steve
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >--
>>>> >Thierry Carrez (ttx)
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >__________________________________________________________________________
>>>> >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> >Unsubscribe:
>>>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
>>>> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>>> Unsubscribe:
>>>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>>> <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe:
>>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>>> <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>   Thanks,
>>
>>  Jay Lau (Guangya Liu)
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe>
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>   Thanks,
>
>  Jay Lau (Guangya Liu)
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 
Thanks,

Jay Lau (Guangya Liu)
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to