Open Stack

Hi Mike and Zane,

Le 27/09/2013 15:58, Mike Spreitzer a écrit :
> Zane Bitter <zbitter at redhat.com> wrote on 09/27/2013 08:24:49 AM:
>
> > Your diagrams clearly show scheduling happening in a separate stage to
> > (infrastructure) orchestration, which is to say that at the point where
> > resources are scheduled, their actual creation is in the *future*.
> >
> > I am not a Climate expert, but it seems to me that they have a
> > near-identical problem to solve: how do they integrate with Heat such
> > that somebody who has reserved resources in the past can actually 
> create
> > them (a) as part of a Heat stack or (b) as standalone resources, at the
> > user's option. IMO OpenStack should solve this problem only once.
>
> If I understand correctly, what Climate adds to the party is planning 
> allocations to happen at some specific time in the non-immediate 
> future.  A holistic infrastructure scheduler is planning allocations 
> to happen just as soon as we can get the plans through the relevant 
> code path, which is why I describe it as "now".
>

Climate is wide-scoped aiming to exclusively reserve any kind of 
resources by a certain time. This generic sentence doesn't mean Climate 
can't schedule things 'now': you can ask for an immediate lease 
(starting 'now') and youwill get the resources as of now.

Climate team is actually split into two different teams, one focusing on 
hardware procurement and one focusing of virtual procurement. I can't 
speak on behalf of the 'Climate Virtual' team, but I would bet 
scheduling an Heat stack or aSavanna cluster will require some kind of 
holistic DSL, indeed.

>From the 'Climate Physical' POV, that could even be necessary, 
butyetunclear at the moment.

-Sylvain

>
> > If I understood your remarks correctly, we agree that there is no
> > (known) reason that the scheduling has to occur in the middle of
> > orchestration (which would have implied that it needed to be
> > incorporated in some sense into Heat).
>
> If you agree that by orchestration you meant specifically 
> infrastructure orchestration then we are agreed.  If software 
> orchestration is also in the picture then I also agree that holistic 
> infrastructure scheduling does not *have to* go in between software 
> orchestration and infrastructure orchestration --- but I think that's 
> a pretty good place for it.
>
>
> > Right, so what I'm saying is that if all those things are _stated_ in
> > the input then there's no need to run the orchestration engine to find
> > out what they'll be; they're already stated.
>
> Yep.
>
> Thanks,
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131001/4672978f/attachment.html>