[openstack-dev] [climate] Mirantis proposal to extend Climate to support virtual resources reservation

Patrick Petit patrick.petit at bull.net
Wed Aug 7 18:00:07 UTC 2013

Hi Scott,

Thanks for your inputs. Please see some comments below.
On 8/6/13 6:58 PM, Scott Devoid wrote:
> Some thoughts:
> 0. Should Climate also address the need for an eviction service? That 
> is, a service that can weight incoming requests and existing resource 
> allocations using some set of policies and evict an existing resource 
> allocations to make room for the higher weighted request. Eviction is 
> necessary if you want to implement a Spot-like service. And if you 
> want Climate reservations that do not tie physical resources to the 
> reservation, this is also required to ensure that requests against the 
> reservation succeed. (Note that even if you do tie physical resources 
> as in whole-host reservations, an eviction service can help when 
> physical resources fail.)
Good point. We probably don't want to to tie physical resources to a 
reservations until the lease becomes active.
> 1. +1 Let end users continue to use existing APIs for resources and 
> extend those interfaces with reservation attributes. Climate should 
> only handle reservation crud and tracking.
> 2a. As an operator, I want the power to define reservations in terms 
> of host capacity / flavor, min duration, max duration... and limit 
> what kind of reservation requests can come in. Basically define 
> "reservation flavors" and let users submit requests as instances of 
> one "reservation flavor". If you let the end user define all of these 
> parameters I will be rejecting a lot of reservation requests.
Sure, however it is unclear what is the state of reflection about 
creating host flavor types and extend Nova and API to support that 
case...? Meanwhile, I think the approach proposed in 
https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/WholeHostAllocation to use pre-defined 
metadata in aggregates should work for categorizing host reservation 
> 2b. What's the point of an "immediate lease"? This should be 
> equivalent to making the request against Nova directly right? Perhaps 
> there's a rational for this w.r.t. billing? Otherwise I'm not sure 
> what utility this kind of reservation provides?
Well, Amazon uses it as a business enabler for whole sales activities. 
 From the end-user standpoint it ensures that the resources is available 
for the duration of the lease. I think it is useful when your cloud has 
limited capacity with capacity contenders.
> 2c. Automatic vs. manual reservation approval:
>     What a user wants to know is whether a reservation can be granted
>     in a all-or-nothing manner at the time he is asking the lease.
> This is a very hard problem to solve: you have to model resource 
> availability (MTTF, MTBF), resource demand (how full are we going to 
> be), and bake in explicit policies (this tenant gets priority) to 
> automatically grant / deny such reservations. Having reservations go 
> through a manual request -> operator approval system is extremely 
> simple and allows operators to tackle the automated case as they need to.
I agree, but I think that was Dina was referring to when speaking of 
automatic vs manual reservation is the ability to express whether the 
resource is started automatically or not by the reservation service. My 
point was to say that reservation and instantiation are two different 
and separate things and so the specification of post-lease actions 
should not be restricted to that if it was only because a reservation 
that is not started automatically by the reservation service could still 
be started automatically by someone else like auto-scaling.
> All I need is a tool that lets a tenant spawn a single critical 
> instance even when another tenant is running an application that's 
> constantly trying to grab as many instances as it can get.
> 3. This will add a lot of complexity, particularly if you want to 
> tackle #0.
> 5. (NEW) Note that Amazon's reserved instances feature doesn't tie 
> reservations against specific instances. Effectively you purchase 
> discount coupons to be applied at the end of the billing cycle. I am 
> not sure how Amazon handles tenants with multiple reservations at 
> different utilization levels (prioritize heavy -> light?).
Amazon knows how to handle tenant's dedicated instances with 
reservations in the context of VPC. Not sure either how or if it works 
at all when mixed with prioritization levels. That's tough!
> ~ Scott
> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 6:12 AM, Patrick Petit <patrick.petit at bull.net 
> <mailto:patrick.petit at bull.net>> wrote:
>     Hi Dina and All,
>     Please see comments inline. We can  drill down on the specifics
>     off-line if that's more practical.
>     Thanks in advance,
>     Patrick
>     On 8/5/13 3:19 PM, Dina Belova wrote:
>>     Hello, everyone!
>>     Patrick, Julien, thank you so much for your comments. As for the
>>     moments Patrick mentioned in his letter, I'll describe our vision
>>     for them below.
>>     1) Patrick, thank you for the idea! I think it would be great to
>>     add not only 'post-lease actions policy', but also 'start-lease
>>     actions policy'. I mean like having two types of what can be done
>>     with resource (virtual one) on lease starting - 'start VM
>>     automatically' or 'start VM manually'. This means user may not
>>     use reserved resources at all, if he needs such a behaviour.
>     Something along those lines would work but I think the 'start VM
>     manually' keeps over specifying the behavior IMO since you still
>     make the assumption that reserved resources are always started
>     using a term 'manually' that is misleading because if not
>     automatically started by the reservation service they can still be
>     automatically started elsewhere like in Heat. I general I agree
>     that users can take advantage of being able to specify pre and
>     post lease actions / conditions although it shouldn't be
>     prescriptive of something binary like start automatically or
>     manually. Another beneficial usage could be to send parametrized
>     notifications. I would also make the pre and post action optional
>     so that if the user choose not to associate an action with the
>     realization of a lease, he doesn't have to specify anything.
>     Finally, I would also that the specification of a pre and post
>     action is assorted of a time offset to take into account the lead
>     time to provision certain types of resources like physical hosts.
>     That's a possible solution to point 4.
>>     2) We really believe that creating lease first, and going with
>>     its id to all the OpenStack projects to use is a better idea than
>>     'filling' the lease with resources just at the moment of its
>>     creation. I'll try to explain why. First of all, as for virtual
>>     reservations, we'll need to proxy Nova, Cinder, etc. APIs through
>>     Reservation API to reserve VM or volume or something else.
>>     Workflow for VM/volume/etc. creation is really complicated and
>>     only services written to do this have to do it, in our opinion.
>>     Second, this makes adding new reservations to the created lease
>>     simple and user friendly. And the last moment, we should not copy
>>     all these dashboard pages for instance/volume/... creation to the
>>     reservation Dashboard tab in this case. As for the physical
>>     reservations, as you mentioned, there is no way to 'create' them
>>     like virtual resources in the Nova's, for example, API now.
>>     That's why there are two ways to solve this problem and reserve
>>     them. First way is to reserve them from Reservation Service as it
>>     is implemented now and described also in our document (WF-2b part
>>     of it). The second variant (that seems to be more elegant, but
>>     more complicated as well) is to implement needed parts as Nova
>>     API extension to let Nova do the things it does the best way -
>>     managing hosts, VMs, etc. Our concern in this question is not
>>     doing things Nova (or any other service) can do much better.
>     Well, I am under the impression that you put forward an
>     argumentation that is mostly based on an implementation artifact
>     which takes advantage of the actual resource provisioning workflow
>     and dashboard rather than taking into account the most common use
>     cases and practices. There maybe use cases that mandate for an
>     iterative workflow that is similar to what you describe. I may be
>     wrong, but I am doubtful it is going to be a common use case. We
>     tend to think of AWS as being a reference and you've probably
>     noticed that reservations in AWS are performed by chunk (the more
>     I reserve for the longer period of time, the cheaper). The problem
>     with adding reservations into a lease on a continuous basis is
>     that as a user I may end up undo what I have done (e.g. I got only
>     900 out of the 1000 VMs I want) and keep trying forever. That's
>     potentially a lot of overhead. Also, as a cloud operator, I'd like
>     to know what my reservation pipeline looks like ahead of time so
>     that I can provision new hardware in due time. That's capacity
>     planning. As an operator, I also want to be able grant
>     reservations and charge for it even if I don't have the capacity
>     right now provided the lead time to provisioning new hardware
>     doesn't conflict with the terms of the pending leases. If a user
>     can add reservations to a lease at the last moment, that
>     flexibility may be compromised. In any events, this is how we
>     envision the behavior of the reservation service for the
>     reservation of physical capacity and so, it is important the
>     service API can support that interaction model. I think it's
>     probably okay to do it in two separate steps 1) create the lease,
>     2) add reservation (although it seems problematic in the case of
>     immediate lease) but the actual hosts reservation request should
>     include a cardinality factor so that if the user wants to reserve
>     x number of hosts in one chunk he can do it. The reservation
>     service would respond yes or no depending on the three possible
>     lease terms (immediate, best effort and schedule) along with the
>     operator's specific reservation policies that yet has to be
>     configurable one way or another. To be discussed...
>>     3) We completely agree with you! Our 'nested reservation' vision
>>     was created only to let user the opportunity of checking
>>     reservation status of complex virtual resources (stacks) by
>>     having an opportunity to check status of all its 'nested'
>>     components, like VMs, networks, etc. This can be done as well by
>>     using just Heat without reservation service. Now we are thinking
>>     about reservation as the reservation of the OpenStack resource
>>     that has ID in the OpenStack service DB, no matter how complex it
>>     is (VM, network, floating IP, stack, etc.)
>     I am not sure I am getting this...? All I wanted to say is that
>     orchestration is a pretty big deal and my recommendation is not to
>     do any of this at all in the reservation service but rely on Heat
>     instead when possible. I understand you seem to agree with this...
>     Also, I am not sure how you can do stack reservations on the basis
>     of a Heat template when it has auto-scaling groups.
>>     4) We were thinking about Reservation Scheduler as a service that
>>     controls lease life cycle (starting, ending, making user
>>     notifications, etc.) and communicates with Reservation Manager
>>     via RPC. Reservation Manager can send user notifications about
>>     close lease ending using Ceilometer (this question has to be
>>     researched). As for the time needed to run physical reservation
>>     or complex virtual one, that is used to make preparations and
>>     settings, I think it would be better for user to amortise it in
>>     lease using period, because for physical resources it much
>>     depends on hardware resources and for virtual ones - on hardware,
>>     network and geo location of DCs.
>     Do you mean make the user aware of the provisioning lead time in
>     the lease schedule? How do suggest they know how to account for
>     that? In practice, a lease is a contract and so the reservations
>     must be available at the exact time the lease becomes effective.
>>     Thank you,
>>     DIna.
>>     On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Julien Danjou <julien at danjou.info
>>     <mailto:julien at danjou.info>> wrote:
>>         On Fri, Aug 02 2013, Patrick Petit wrote:
>>         > 3. The proposal specifies that a lease can contain a combo
>>         of different
>>         >    resources types reservations (instances, volumes, hosts,
>>         Heat
>>         >    stacks, ...) that can even be nested and that the
>>         reservation
>>         >    service will somehow orchestrate their deployment when
>>         the lease
>>         >    kicks in. In my opinion, many use cases (at least ours)
>>         do not
>>         >    warrant for that level of complexity and so, if that's
>>         something
>>         >    that is need to support your use cases, then it should
>>         be delivered
>>         >    as module that can be loaded optionally in the system.
>>         Our preferred
>>         >    approach is to use Heat for deployment orchestration.
>>         I agree that this is not something Climate should be in
>>         charge. If the
>>         user wants to reserve a set of services and deploys them
>>         automatically,
>>         Climate should provide the lease and Heat the deployment
>>         orchestration.
>>         Also, for example, it may be good to be able to reserve
>>         automatically
>>         the right amount of resources needed to deploy a Heat stack
>>         via Climate.
>>         --
>>         Julien Danjou
>>         // Free Software hacker / freelance consultant
>>         // http://julien.danjou.info
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>         OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>         <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>>         http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>     -- 
>>     Best regards,
>>     Dina Belova
>>     Software Engineer
>>     Mirantis Inc.
>     -- 
>     Patrick Petit
>     Cloud Computing Principal Architect, Innovative Products
>     Bull, Architect of an Open World TM
>     Tél :+33 (0)4 76 29 70 31  <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%2076%2029%2070%2031>
>     Mobile :+33 (0)6 85 22 06 39  <tel:%2B33%20%280%296%2085%2022%2006%2039>
>     http://www.bull.com
>     _______________________________________________
>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20130807/12670b42/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list