2014-03-18 14:07 GMT+01:00 Russell Bryant :
>
> I think it's great to see discussion of better ways to approach these
> things, but it would have to be Juno work.
>
>
+1. There are various blueprints about the scheduler in progress, related
to either splitting it out or scaling it, and IMHO this c
On 03/17/2014 01:54 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 15 March 2014 18:39, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm curious why the specified git commit chose to fix the anti-affinity race
>> condition by aborting the boot and triggering a reschedule.
>>
>> It seems to me that it would have been more eleg
Hi Chris,
2014-03-18 0:36 GMT+01:00 Chris Friesen :
> On 03/17/2014 05:01 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>
>
>> There are 2 distinct cases :
>> 1. there are multiple schedulers involved in the decision
>> 2. there is one single scheduler but there is a race condition on it
>>
>
>
> About 1., I agree
On 03/17/2014 05:01 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
There are 2 distinct cases :
1. there are multiple schedulers involved in the decision
2. there is one single scheduler but there is a race condition on it
About 1., I agree we need to see how the scheduler (and later on Gantt)
could address deci
Hi Chris,
2014-03-17 23:08 GMT+01:00 Chris Friesen :
> On 03/17/2014 02:30 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>
>> There is a global concern here about how an holistic scheduler can
>> perform decisions, and from which key metrics.
>> The current effort is leading to having the Gantt DB updated thanks t
penstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] question about e41fb84 "fix anti-affinity
race condition on boot"
On 03/17/2014 02:30 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
There is a global concern here about how an holistic scheduler can
perform decisions, and from which key metrics.
The cu
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 12:39 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Laski
> > wrote:
> > On 03/17/14 at 01:11pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
> > On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> >
On 03/17/2014 02:30 PM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
There is a global concern here about how an holistic scheduler can
perform decisions, and from which key metrics.
The current effort is leading to having the Gantt DB updated thanks to
resource tracker for scheduling appropriately the hosts.
If we con
There is a global concern here about how an holistic scheduler can perform
decisions, and from which key metrics.
The current effort is leading to having the Gantt DB updated thanks to
resource tracker for scheduling appropriately the hosts.
If we consider these metrics as not enough, ie. that Gan
On 03/17/2014 01:29 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
On 03/17/14 at 01:11pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt wrote:
Given the scheduler split, writing that value into the nova db from
the scheduler would be a step backwards, and i
On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 12:39 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Laski
> wrote:
> On 03/17/14 at 01:11pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
> On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt
>
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Laski
wrote:
> On 03/17/14 at 01:11pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
>
>> On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>
>>> On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt wrote:
>>>
>>
>> Given the scheduler split, writing that value into the nova db from
the schedule
On 03/17/14 at 01:11pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt wrote:
Given the scheduler split, writing that value into the nova db from
the scheduler would be a step backwards, and it probably breaks lots
of code that assumes t
On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt wrote:
Given the scheduler split, writing that value into the nova db from
the scheduler would be a step backwards, and it probably breaks lots
of code that assumes the host is not set until much later.
Why wou
On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 15 March 2014 18:39, Chris Friesen wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm curious why the specified git commit chose to fix the anti-affinity race
>> condition by aborting the boot and triggering a reschedule.
>>
>> It seems to me that it would have been more ele
On 15 March 2014 18:39, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm curious why the specified git commit chose to fix the anti-affinity race
> condition by aborting the boot and triggering a reschedule.
>
> It seems to me that it would have been more elegant for the scheduler to do
> a database transaction
Hi,
I'm curious why the specified git commit chose to fix the anti-affinity
race condition by aborting the boot and triggering a reschedule.
It seems to me that it would have been more elegant for the scheduler to
do a database transaction that would atomically check that the chosen
host was
17 matches
Mail list logo
