I think it can help add enough predictability and structure to keep costs down 
as well.  If you know the end users will be using 1 of 25 different 
pre-configured packages, you can somewhat reliably configure hardware sku's 
around that because often the packages are a fractional size of the hardware 
platform.  If you open it up to anything goes, you run the risk of having 
someone that wants 2 cores and 200GB of memory for some SQL server.  They want 
everything in memory but they don't want to pay the M$ licenses for additional 
cores.  So now you have a vm on a physical server somewhere with excess CPU 
cycles that can't be used because the VM that's on it has sucked up all the 
memory.  The poor utilization of resources then result in increase overhead and 
higher costs due to the inefficiencies.


________________________________
From: Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 5:10 PM
To: Vladimir Prokofev; OpenStack Operators
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Flavors

I think the really short answer is something like: It greatly simplifies 
scheduling and billing.

________________________________
From: Vladimir Prokofev [v...@prokofev.me]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2017 2:41 PM
To: OpenStack Operators
Subject: [Openstack-operators] Flavors

A question of curiosity - why do we even need flavors?

I do realise that we need a way to provide instance configuration, but why use 
such a rigid construction? Wouldn't it be more flexible to provide instance 
configuration as a set of parameters(metadata), and if you need some presets - 
well, use a preconfigured set of them as a flavor in your front-end(web/CLI 
client parameters)?

Suppose commercial customer has an instance with high storage IO load. 
Currently they have only one option - upsize instance to a flavor that provides 
higher IOPS. But ususally provider has a limited amount of flavors for 
purchase, and they upscale everything for a price. So instead of paying only 
for IOPS customers are pushed to pay for whole package. This is good from 
revenue point of view, but bad for customer's bank account and marketing(i.e. 
product architecure limits).
This applies to every resource - vCPU, RAM, storage, networking, etc - 
everything is controlled by flavor.

This concept has never been questioned anywhere I can search, so I have a 
feeling I'm missing something big here. Maybe other ways are too complicated to 
implement?

So does anyone has any idea - why such rigid approach as flavors instead of 
something more flexible?
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

Reply via email to