On 04/30/2012 08:03 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@enovance.com > <mailto:l...@enovance.com>> wrote: > > On 04/30/2012 03:49 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@enovance.com >> <mailto:l...@enovance.com>> wrote: >> >> On 04/30/2012 12:15 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >> > We could start a discussion from the content of the following >> sections: >> > >> > http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering#Counters >> I think the rationale of the counter aggregation needs to be >> explained. My understanding is that the metering system will be able to >> deliver the following information: 10 floating IPv4 addresses were allocated >> to the tenant during three months and were leased from provider NNN. From >> this, the billing system could add a line to the invoice : 10 IPv4, $N each >> = $10xN because it has been configured to invoice each IPv4 leased from >> provider NNN for $N. >> >> It is not the purpose of the metering system to display each IPv4 >> used, therefore it only exposes the aggregated information. The counters >> define how the information should be aggregated. If the idea was to expose >> each resource usage individually, defining counters would be meaningless as >> they would duplicate the activity log from each OpenStack component. >> >> What do you think ? >> >> >> At DreamHost we are going to want to show each individual resource (the >> IPv4 address, the instance, etc.) along with the charge information. Having >> the metering system aggregate that data will make it difficult/impossible to >> present the bill summary and detail views that we want. It would be much >> more useful for us if it tracked the usage details for each resource, and >> let us aggregate the data ourselves. >> >> If other vendors want to show the data differently, perhaps we should >> provide separate APIs for retrieving the detailed and aggregate data. >> >> Doug >> > Hi, > > For the record, here is the unfinished conversation we had on IRC > > (04:29:06 PM) dhellmann: dachary, did you see my reply about counter > definitions on the list today? > (04:39:05 PM) dachary: It means some counters must not be aggregated. > Only the amount associated with it is but there is one counter per IP. > (04:55:01 PM) dachary: dhellmann: what about this :the id of the > ressource controls the agregation of all counters : if it is missing, all > resources of the same kind and their measures are aggregated. Otherwise only > the measures are agreggated. > http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering?action=diff&rev2=40&rev1=39 > <http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering?action=diff&rev2=40&rev1=39> > (04:55:58 PM) dachary: it makes me a little unconfortable to define such > an "ad-hoc" grouping > (04:56:53 PM) dachary: i.e. you actuall control the aggregation by > chosing which value to put in the id column > (04:58:43 PM) dachary: s/actuall/actually/ > (05:05:38 PM) ***dachary reading http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf > (05:05:54 PM) dachary: I feel like we're trying to resolve a non problem > here > (05:08:42 PM) dachary: values need to be aggregated. The raw input is a > full description of the resource and a value ( gauge ). The question is how > to control the aggregation in a reasonably flexible way. > (05:11:34 PM) dachary: The definition of a counter could probably be > described as : the id of a resource and code to fill each column associated > with it. > > I tried to append the following, but the wiki kept failing. > > Propose that the counters are defined by a function instead of being > fixed. That helps addressing the issue of aggregating the bandwidth > associated to a given IP into a single counter. > > Alternate idea : > * a counter is defined by > * a name ( o1, n2, etc. ) that uniquely identifies the nature of the > measure ( outbound internet transit, amount of RAM, etc. ) > * the component in which it can be found ( nova, swift etc.) > * and by columns, each one is set with the result of > aggregate(find(record),record) where > * find() looks for the existing column as found by selecting with the > unique key ( maybe the name and the resource id ) > * record is a detailed description of the metering event to be > aggregated ( > http://wiki.openstack.org/SystemUsageData#compute.instance.exists: ) > * the aggregate() function returns the updated row. By default it just > += the counter value with the old row returned by find() > > > Would we want aggregation to occur within the database where we are > collecting events, or should that move somewhere else? I assume the events collected by the metering agents will all be archived for auditing (or re-building the database) http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering?action=diff&rev2=45&rev1=44
Therefore the aggregation should occur when the database is updated to account for a new event. Does this make sense ? I may have misunderstood part of your question. Cheers
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
