Open Stack

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 20/11/13 23:49, Christopher Armstrong wrote:

>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/AutoScaling#LBMember.3F
>>
>> Basically, the LoadBalancerMember resource (which is very similar to the
>> CinderVolumeAttachment) would be responsible for removing and adding IPs
>> from/to the load balancer (which is actually a direct mapping to the way
>> the various LB APIs work). Since this resource lives with the server
>> resource inside the scaling unit, we don't really need to get anything
>> _out_ of that stack, only pass _in_ the load balancer ID.
>
>
> I see a couple of problems with this approach:
>
> 1) It makes the default case hard. There's no way to just specify a server
> and hook it up to a load balancer like you can at the moment. Instead, you
> _have_ to create a template (or template snippet - not really any better) to
> add this extra resource in, even for what should be the most basic, default
> case (scale servers behind a load balancer).

First, the design we had implied that we had a template all the time.
Now that changed, it does make things a bit harder than the
LoadBalancerNames list, but it's still fairly simple to me, and brings
a lot of flexibility.

Personally, my idea was to build a generic API, and then build helpers
on top of it to make common cases easier. It seems it's not a shared
view, but I don't see how we can do both at once.

> 2) It relies on a plugin being present for any type of thing you might want
> to notify.
>
> At summit and - to the best of my recollection - before, we talked about
> scaling a generic group of resources and passing notifications to a generic
> controller, with the types of both defined by the user. I was expecting you
> to propose something based on webhooks, which is why I was surprised not to
> see anything about it in the API. (I'm not prejudging that that is the way
> to go... I'm actually wondering if Marconi has a role to play here.)

We definitely talked about notifications between resources. But,
putting it in the way of the autoscaling API would postpone things
quite a bit, whereas we don't really need it for the first phase. If
we use the member concept, we can provide a first integration step,
where the only missing thing would be rolling updates.

-- 
Thomas