Open Stack

On 10/03/2012 02:42 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Hi, Gary,
>
> The ceilometer team is trying to encourage people to ask us questions 
> on the openstack-dev list, instead of privately. I'll answer inline 
> below, but if you don't mind having this conversation publicly would 
> you copy the list when you reply? Thanks!

Sorry my bad. Added the list.
>
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at redhat.com 
> <mailto:gkotton at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>     I wanted to ask a few additional questions regarding the patch -
>     https://review.openstack.org/#/c/13943/ - aka quantum-usage-audit:-
>     1. Do you guys intend to take care of the router and floating IP
>     support? This seems to be lacking at the moment. I am not sure if
>     this is supported by notifications at the moment.
>
>
> We are currently polling for floating IP status. Julien did that work, 
> IIRC, and I think polling was used because there were no 
> notifications. We should be able to contribute some help to add 
> notifications during grizzly, which would let us eliminate the polling 
> on our side.

OK. This is certainly something that is missing in Quantum. I think that 
we should open a bug for tracking.
>
>     2. I think that the reporting can be optimized. Can you please
>     elaborate a little more on how you see things. I would hope that
>     this is going to be something that is going to be discussed at the
>     summit. Did you guys consider using a pull from Quantum using the
>     API - similar to the L3 agent?
>
>
> We do have some polling, although I think it's going straight to the 
> database right now (fixing that is another goal, all of this is a work 
> in progress).

Is the polling via the quantum client?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "optimized" though. Having a standalone 
> app generate data over the message bus seems like it would have less 
> impact on quantum than if we were hitting the API every few minutes. 
> Perhaps there's some aspect to the way the data is gathered that I 
> don't understand though. The ultimate goal is to have quantum emitting 
> the audit notifications on its own in whatever way combines efficiency 
> and accuracy. In nova and cinder the audit messages are disabled by 
> default, so a deployer has to set a configuration option to enable 
> them (for nova) or enable a cron job (for cinder).

I was originally thinking of having a timestamp and then doing the 
updates to ceilometer would be done according to the timestamp. Say for 
example having a "Last Updated" field could ensure that there is less 
data sent every interval. At the moment there will be a network burst 
every time the audit is run.
>
> We do have several summit sessions planned. Ceilometer has a 
> mini-track Monday morning with 3 sessions 
> (http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering/GrizzlySummit), and at 
> Dan's request I proposed a session for the Quantum track specifically 
> to talk about integrating Ceilometer and Quantum.

Thanks
>
>     3. Is this something that will be cherry picked to stable quantum
>     and in turn should be packaged? If so I understand that this is a
>     cron job that should be run every X minutes?
>
> That is the goal. It would be up to deployers to set up the cron job, 
> and we would need to document that in the ceilometer documentation 
> (probably the quantum docs, too, but we'll definitely have it in our 
> docs).
>
> Doug
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20121003/5a6a7f18/attachment.html>