[openstack-dev] [Ceilometer][Metering] Metadata on Meter table - use cases from StackTach ...
sandy.walsh at rackspace.com
Wed Jan 30 14:27:45 UTC 2013
On 01/30/2013 10:17 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30 2013, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>>> I don't think Ceilometer collector is going to store raw notifications.
>>> There's no point into the whole Ceilometer project to store this data.
>> Perhaps in your deployment, we have downstream clients that are
>> definitely going to want access to the rich information. We may be able
>> to pare that down to a smaller subset, but right now we have no idea
>> what they're going to want.
>>> Your best call here is probably to keep that part of StackTach if you
>>> really need all the raw notifications.
>> Well, that's not our goal here. We don't want to maintain two
>> applications for archiving.
> Right, but I don't think we will bend Ceilometer to do something else
> that it's supposed to do. Ceilometer is a metering project, not a
> OpenStack notification archival project.
I don't understand the difference? Metering assumes archiving. If any
company with SEC requirements wants to use Ceilometer for billing, for
example, they'll have to store 90+ days of data.
Can you elaborate on the ceilometer mandate?
>>> For things are likely to be meter (i.e. things with a duration and/or a
>>> volume), you can write some Ceilometer notification plugin building a
>>> bunch of meter from what you get. Multi-publisher can also help you
>>> building more advanced counter through the use of transformer if you
>> Do you mean a nova compute notification plugin?
>> That's the sort of thing we want to get away from, installing custom
>> stuff on the compute nodes.
> Err, no, that's not what I mean. Actually, I don't understand how you
> read "nova compute notification plugin" in my sentence.
Sorry, I still trip over the ceilometer terminology. I was citing your
comment above about "Ceilometer notification plugin" ... and the only
one I was aware of was the one here:
And, if so, I was saying that's the thing we don't really need.
> Is it from
> "transformer"? I refer to the transformers we defined in the
> multi-publisher blueprints:
> Or is something else?
No, I've read the multi-publisher BP's, but was discussing current code.
In fact, I think the MP stuff is going to highlight the need for richer
data types as new transformers start to crop up. Certainly it's going to
tax the metadata/query framework.
More information about the OpenStack-dev