Yes, I am assuming the service controller provides a different stream of
data from the lower level VM events. So the question is how to represent
and store this additional meta data in ceilometer. Note that there
doesn't necessarily need to be a linkage/grouping between the resources
since the association is what is actually contained in the metadata that
is provided by the service controller.
As a summary
Nova provides its normal events for usage
Service controller provides a mapping of nova instances to service type
and actual end user
Dan
On 11/1/2012 11:25 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Dan Dyer <dan.dye...@gmail.com
<mailto:dan.dye...@gmail.com>> wrote:
In some cases, the service controller is actually running inside a
VM. It would not have access to the internals of the VM's. It
maintains its metadata separately from the Nova infrastructure.
It doesn't need internal access to the VM, but something has to share
the metadata with ceilometer (or "join" it to the data ceilometer has)
at some point. If it would be too difficult to get the data into the
events, then it could be done by the app that uses the ceilometer API
to query for usage. For example, the app that loads data from
ceilometer to your real billing system could be driven by data saved
by the service controller in whatever database it uses.
Doug
DD
On 10/25/2012 2:25 AM, Nick Barcet wrote:
Let's imagine that the service that launch instances can tag the
instance with:
a) a common service identifier (constant)
b) a uuid unique for each "Unit" of the service
such as <constant>:<uuid>
If that tag is passed onto the events which ceilometer stores in its
entirety as meta, I do not see what the difficulty would be for the
rating engine to be able to reconcile the information to handle your 2
use cases. Am I missing something?
Nick
On 10/25/2012 12:03 AM, Dan Dyer wrote:
I don't think its just a matter of adding more meters or events for a
couple of reasons:
1. In many cases the metadata I am referring to comes from a different
source than the base usage data. Nova is still emitting its normal
events, but we get the service/user mapping from a different source. I
would not characterize this data as usage metrics but more data about
the system relationships.
2. in the multiple VM case, we need to have the relationships specified
so that we can ignore the proper VM's. There has also been talk of
hybrid billing models that charge for some part of the VM usage as well
as other metrics. Once again we need a way to characterize the
relationships so that processing can associate and filter correctly.
Dan
On 10/24/2012 3:35 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
On Wed, Oct 24 2012, Dan Dyer wrote:
Use Case 1
Service Owned Instances
There are a set of use cases where a service is acting on behalf of a
user,
the service is the owner of the VM but billing needs to be attributed
to the
end user of the system.This scenario drives two requirements:
1. Pricing is similar to base VM's but with a premium. So the type of
service for a VM needs to be identifiable so that the appropriate
pricing
can be applied.
2. The actual end user of the VM needs to be identified so usage can be
properly attributed
I think that for this, you just need to add more meters on top of the
existing one with your own user and project id information.
As an example, in some of our PAAS use cases, there is a service
controller
running on top of the base VM that maintains the control and and
manages the
customer experience. The idea is to expose the service and not have the
customer have to (or even be able to) manipulate the virtual machine
directly. So in this case, from a Nova perspective, the PAAS service
owns
the VM and it's tenantID is what is reported back in events. The way we
resolve this is to query the service controller for meta data about that
instances they own. This is stored off in a separate "table" and used to
determine the real user at aggregation time.
This is probably where you should emit the meters you need.
Use Case 2
Multple Instances combine to make a billable "product/service"
In this use case, a service might consist of several VM's, but the
actual
number does not directly drive the billing. An example of this might
be a
redundant service that has a primary and two backup VM's that make up a
deployment. The customer is charged for the service, not the fact
that there
are 3 VM's running. Once again, we need meta data that is able to
describe
this relationship so that when the billing records are processed, this
relationship can be identified and billed properly.
Kind of the same here, if you don't want to really bill the vm, just
don't meter them (or ignore the meters) and emit your own meter via your
PaaS platform to bill your customer.
Or is there a limitation I miss?
_______________________________________________
Mailing list:https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
Post to :openstack@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe :https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
More help :https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list:https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
Post to :openstack@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe :https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
More help :https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
<mailto:openstack@lists.launchpad.net>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
