[openstack-dev] [heat][mistral] EventScheduler vs Mistral scheduling
rakhmerov at mirantis.com
Fri Nov 15 06:44:00 UTC 2013
On 14 Nov 2013, at 21:46, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:
> If you have a service that is stateless and only responds to user requests, then scaling it out is easy (just stick it behind a load balancer). If it has state (i.e. a database), things become a whole lot more complicated to maintain consistency. And if the application has timed tasks as well as incoming requests, that also adds another layer of complexity.
> Basically you need to ensure that a task is triggered exactly once, in a highly-available distributed system (and, per a previous thread, you're not allowed to use Zookeeper ;). Your scaling strategy will be more or less dictated by this, possibly to the detriment of the rest of your service - though in Mistral it may well be the case that you have this constraint already. If not then one possible solution to this is to run two binaries and have different scaling strategies for each.
Yes, Zookeeper seems to be out of the game. I think when we dive deeper into this we may find other options too. Not 100% clear at this point though. Once we have a breakdown of a typical workflow processing (say scheduled in some way) we’ll see all the details and I’m sure we’ll figure out the possible solutions. I now see some problematic things. For example, what is called now “overlap_policy” in EventScheduler doesn’t seem to be an easy thing to implement in HA env without using something like Zookeeper. Just because it’s an obvious case when we need to “stop the world” and make a decision what to do and who (a node) is responsible for that and how to make sure the decision doesn’t get lost if a target node is down and so on and so forth. So, a lot of questions.
Thanks for you input, that is a good point to discuss. It would be great if you could participate in our design, for now in https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/MistralDesignAndDependencies.
> None of this should take away from the fact that the two features should be part of the same API (this is what I meant by "sharing a front-end”)
Got it, I think it will be just more convenient from consumption perspective.
> Hopefully that clarifies things :)
Yes, thanks :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev