Excerpts from Herman Narkaytis's message of 2013-12-09 08:18:17 -0800:
> Hi All,
> Last couple of month Mirantis team was working on new scalable scheduler
> architecture. The main concept was proposed by Boris Pavlovic in the
> following blue print
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/n
Hi All,
Last couple of month Mirantis team was working on new scalable scheduler
architecture. The main concept was proposed by Boris Pavlovic in the
following blue print
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/no-db-scheduler and Alexey
Ovchinnikov prepared a bunch of patches
https://review.
On 12/03/2013 03:17 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> The team size was a minimum, not a maximum - please add your names.
>
> We're currently waiting on the prerequisite blueprint to land before
> work starts in earnest; and for the blueprint to be approved (he says,
> without having checked to see if i
On 12/03/2013 03:17 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> The team size was a minimum, not a maximum - please add your names.
>
> We're currently waiting on the prerequisite blueprint to land before
> work starts in earnest; and for the blueprint to be approved (he says,
> without having checked to see if i
I totally agree on this meta level scheduler aspect. This should separate the
placement decision making logic (for resources of any type, but can start on
Nova resources) from their actual creation, say VM creation.
This way the placement decisions can be relayed to the individual components
I agree with RussellB on this … if the forklift's goal is to just separate
the scheduler, there should be no new features etc till the forklift is
done and it should work as is with very minor config changes.
A scheduler has several features like place resources correctly, for
example. Ideally, th
On 12/03/2013 07:22 AM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
> Finally found a bit time to write my thoughts.
>
> There are few blockers that make really complex to build scheduler as a
> services or even to move main part of scheduler code to separated lib.
> We already have one unsuccessfully e
:)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jerome Gallard & Khanh-Toan Tran
>
> > -Message d'origine-
> > De : Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net]
> > Envoyé : mardi 3 décembre 2013 09:18
> > À : OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questi
d'origine-
> De : Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net]
> Envoyé : mardi 3 décembre 2013 09:18
> À : OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Objet : Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a
modest
> proposal for an external sched
Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 11:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> I don't really care that much about deprecation in that case, but I care
>> about which release the new project is made part of. Would you make it
>> part of the Icehouse common release ? That means fast-tracking through
>> in
Hi all
More volunteers for you - myself (Calum Loudon) and Colin Tregenza Dancer from
Metaswitch (http://metaswitch.com).
We're new to OpenStack development, so a bit of context: we develop software
for the telecoms space, ranging from low-level network stacks to voice
applications. We see en
The team size was a minimum, not a maximum - please add your names.
We're currently waiting on the prerequisite blueprint to land before
work starts in earnest; and for the blueprint to be approved (he says,
without having checked to see if it has been now:))
-Rob
On 3 December 2013 20:48, Wang,
Lianhao Lu, Shuangtai Tian and I are also willing to join the team to
contribute because we are also changing scheduler, but it seems the team is
full. You can put us to the backup list.
Thanks.
--
Shane
-Original Message-
From: Robert Collins [mailto:robe...@robertcollins.net]
Sent: F
On 12/02/2013 04:49 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> That is a good point. If the forklift is still talking to nova's
> db then it would be significantly less duplication and i could see
> doing it in the reverse order. The no-db-stuff should be done
> before trying to implement cinder support so we
On Dec 2, 2013, at 12:38 PM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 03:31 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>>
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Russell Bryant
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/02/2013 10:59 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
I think that this is certainly different. It is something that
we we wa
On 12/02/2013 02:31 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
I'm going to reopen a can of worms, though. I think the most difficult part of
the forklift will be moving stuff out of the existing databases into
a new database.
Do we really need to move it to a new database for the forklift?
Chris
___
On 12/02/2013 03:31 PM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Russell Bryant
> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2013 10:59 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
>>> I think that this is certainly different. It is something that
>>> we we want and need a user facing API. Examples: - aggregates -
>>> per
On Dec 2, 2013, at 9:12 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 10:59 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
>> I think that this is certainly different. It is something that we we want
>> and need a user facing API.
>> Examples:
>> - aggregates
>> - per host scheduling
>> - instance groups
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>>
Le 02/12/2013 18:12, Russell Bryant a écrit :
On 12/02/2013 10:59 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
I think that this is certainly different. It is something that we we want
and need a user facing API.
Examples:
- aggregates
- per host scheduling
- instance groups
Etc.
That is just taking the nova
On 12/02/2013 10:59 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
> I think that this is certainly different. It is something that we we want
> and need a user facing API.
> Examples:
> - aggregates
> - per host scheduling
> - instance groups
>
> Etc.
>
> That is just taking the nova options into account and not the
On 12/02/2013 11:41 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> I don't really care that much about deprecation in that case, but I care
> about which release the new project is made part of. Would you make it
> part of the Icehouse common release ? That means fast-tracking through
> incubation *and* integration i
Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 09:13 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 11/29/2013 10:01 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Robert Collins wrote:
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler
>>>
>>> Just looked into it with release management / TC hat on and I have a
>>> (possibly
On 12/2/13 5:33 PM, "Monty Taylor" wrote:
>
>
>On 12/02/2013 09:13 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
>> On 11/29/2013 10:01 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>>> Robert Collins wrote:
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://etherpad.openstack.o
rg/p/icehouse-external-scheduler&k=oIvRg1
On 12/02/2013 10:53 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
>
>
> On 12/2/13 5:39 PM, "Russell Bryant" wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2013 10:33 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> Just because I'd like to argue - if what we do here is an actual
>>> forklift, do we really need a cycle of deprecation?
>>>
>>> The reason I ask is
On 12/2/13 5:39 PM, "Russell Bryant" wrote:
>On 12/02/2013 10:33 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> Just because I'd like to argue - if what we do here is an actual
>> forklift, do we really need a cycle of deprecation?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that this is, on first stab, not intended to be a
>> ser
On 12/02/2013 10:39 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 12/02/2013 10:33 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> Just because I'd like to argue - if what we do here is an actual
>> forklift, do we really need a cycle of deprecation?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that this is, on first stab, not intended to be a
>> ser
On 12/02/2013 10:33 AM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> Just because I'd like to argue - if what we do here is an actual
> forklift, do we really need a cycle of deprecation?
>
> The reason I ask is that this is, on first stab, not intended to be a
> service that has user-facing API differences. It's a reor
On 12/02/2013 09:13 AM, Russell Bryant wrote:
> On 11/29/2013 10:01 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Robert Collins wrote:
>>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler
>>
>> Just looked into it with release management / TC hat on and I have a
>> (possibly minor) concern on the dep
On 11/29/2013 10:01 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Robert Collins wrote:
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler
>
> Just looked into it with release management / TC hat on and I have a
> (possibly minor) concern on the deprecation path/timing.
>
> Assuming everything goes we
Robert Collins wrote:
> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler
Just looked into it with release management / TC hat on and I have a
(possibly minor) concern on the deprecation path/timing.
Assuming everything goes well, the separate scheduler will be
fast-tracked through inc
On 11/28/13 11:34 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
>On 29 November 2013 09:44, Gary Kotton wrote:
>>
>>
>> The first stage is technical - move Nova scheduling code from A to be.
>> What do we achieve - not much - we actually complicate things - there is
>> always churn in Nova and we will have dupl
> > The first stage is technical - move Nova scheduling code from A to be.
> > What do we achieve - not much - we actually complicate things - there
> > is always churn in Nova and we will have duplicate code bases. In
> > addition to this the only service that can actually make use of they
> > is
On 29 November 2013 09:44, Gary Kotton wrote:
>
>
> The first stage is technical - move Nova scheduling code from A to be.
> What do we achieve - not much - we actually complicate things - there is
> always churn in Nova and we will have duplicate code bases. In addition to
> this the only service
On 11/28/13 8:12 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
>On 29 November 2013 04:50, Gary Kotton wrote:
>
>> I am not really sure how we can have a client tree without even having
>> discussed the API's and interfaces. From the initial round of emails the
>> intention was to make use of the RPC mechanism
On 29 November 2013 04:50, Gary Kotton wrote:
> I am not really sure how we can have a client tree without even having
> discussed the API's and interfaces. From the initial round of emails the
> intention was to make use of the RPC mechanism to speak with the scheduler.
It still is. We have an
Le 28/11/2013 17:04, Chris Friesen a écrit :
On 11/28/2013 09:50 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
One option worth thinking about is to introduce a new scheduling
driver to
nova - this driver will interface with the external scheduler. This will
let us define the scheduling API, model etc, without being
On 11/28/2013 09:50 AM, Gary Kotton wrote:
One option worth thinking about is to introduce a new scheduling driver to
nova - this driver will interface with the external scheduler. This will
let us define the scheduling API, model etc, without being in the current
confines of Nova. This will als
On 11/28/13 12:10 AM, "Robert Collins" wrote:
>On 25 November 2013 21:51, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> As said earlier, I also would love to join the team, triggering a few
>> blueprints or so.
>>
>> By the way, I'm currently reviewing the Scheduler code. Do you began to
>> design the API queries o
On 25 November 2013 21:51, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> As said earlier, I also would love to join the team, triggering a few
> blueprints or so.
>
> By the way, I'm currently reviewing the Scheduler code. Do you began to
> design the API queries or do you need help for that ?
>
> -Sylvain
https://blue
usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for
a modest proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
Robert,
Btw, I would like to be a volunteer too=)
Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Robert Collins
mailto
for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest
proposal for an external scheduler in our lifetime
Robert,
Btw, I would like to be a volunteer too=)
Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Robert Collins
mailto:robe
On 25 November 2013 08:08, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> Robert,
>
>
> Btw, I would like to be a volunteer too=)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Boris Pavlovic
Awesome, added to the etherpad!
--
Robert Collins
Distinguished Technologist
HP Converged Cloud
___
Ope
Robert,
Btw, I would like to be a volunteer too=)
Best regards,
Boris Pavlovic
On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:43 PM, Robert Collins
wrote:
> On 22 November 2013 23:55, Gary Kotton wrote:
> >
> >
>
> >>> I'm looking for 4-5 folk who have:
> >>> - modest Nova skills
> >>> - time to follow a f
On 22 November 2013 23:55, Gary Kotton wrote:
>
>
>>> I'm looking for 4-5 folk who have:
>>> - modest Nova skills
>>> - time to follow a fairly mechanical (but careful and detailed work
>>> needed) plan to break the status quo around scheduler extraction
>
> I would be happy to take part. But p
"Mike Spreitzer"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 4:58:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest
> proposal for an external scheduler in our lifet
>
> De : Robert Collins [robe...@robertcollins.net]
> Date d'envoi : jeudi 21 novembre 2013 21:58
> À : OpenStack Development Mailing List
> Objet : [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volunteers wanted for a modest
> proposal for an external scheduler in our l
I would definitely like to take part in this discussion and also
contribute where I can. I was part of the scheduler sessions in the
recent summit along with Debo Dutta, Gary Kotton, and Mike Spreitzer and
we had proposed sessions on smart resource placement, and also the
instance group API work f
n the next Scheduler
meeting Nov 26th?
Best regards,
Toan
- Original Message -
From: "Mike Spreitzer"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2013 4:58:46 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Schduler] Volun
I'm still a newbie here, so can not claim my Nova skills are even
"modest". But I'd like to track this, if nothing more.
Thanks,
Mike___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/op
On 11/22/13 12:16 PM, "Soren Hansen" wrote:
>I'd very much like to take part in the discussions. Depending on the
>outcome of said discussion, I may or may not want to participate in
>the implementation :)
>
>Soren Hansen |
>https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://linux2go
I'd very much like to take part in the discussions. Depending on the
outcome of said discussion, I may or may not want to participate in
the implementation :)
Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.open
Great initiative!
I would certainly be interested taking part in this -- although I wouldn't
necessary claim to be among "people with the know-how to design and
implement it well". For sure this is going to be a painful but exciting
process.
Regards,
Alex
From: Robert Collins
To: Op
On 22 November 2013 15:57, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
> Robert,
>
> It is nice that community like idea of making one scheduler as a service.
>
>
> But I saw in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-scheduler
> some misleading about
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/no-db-sched
Robert,
It is nice that community like idea of making one scheduler as a service.
But I saw in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/icehouse-external-schedulersome
misleading about
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/no-db-scheduler
Approach no-db-scheduler is actually base step that allows
54 matches
Mail list logo
