Open Stack

On Mon, 2014-03-17 at 12:39 -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Andrew Laski
> <andrew.laski at rackspace.com> wrote:
>         On 03/17/14 at 01:11pm, Chris Friesen wrote:
>                 On 03/17/2014 11:59 AM, John Garbutt wrote:
>                         On 17 March 2014 17:54, John Garbutt
>                         <john at johngarbutt.com> wrote:
>                 
>                                 Given the scheduler split, writing
>                                 that value into the nova db from
>                                 the scheduler would be a step
>                                 backwards, and it probably breaks lots
>                                 of code that assumes the host is not
>                                 set until much later.
>                 
>                 Why would that be a step backwards?  The scheduler has
>                 picked a host for the instance, so it seems reasonable
>                 to record that information in the instance itself as
>                 early as possible (to be incorporated into other
>                 decision-making) rather than have it be implicit in
>                 the destination of the next RPC message.
>                 
>                 Now I could believe that we have code that assumes
>                 that having "instance.host" set implies that it's
>                 already running on that host, but that's a different
>                 issue.
>                 
>                         I forgot to mention, I am starting to be a fan
>                         of a two-phase commit
>                         approach, which could deal with these kinds of
>                         things in a more
>                         explicit way, before starting the main boot
>                         process.
>                         
>                         Its not as elegant as a database transaction,
>                         but that doesn't seems
>                         possible in the log run, but there could well
>                         be something I am
>                         missing here too.
>                 
>                 I'm not an expert in this area, so I'm curious why you
>                 think that database transactions wouldn't be possible
>                 in the long run.
>         
>         
>         There has been some effort around splitting the scheduler out
>         of Nova and into its own project.  So down the road the
>         scheduler may not have direct access to the Nova db.
> 
> 
> If we do pull out the nova scheduler it can have its own DB, so I
> don't think this should be an issue.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but even if Gantt had its own
database, would that necessarily mean that there would be only a single
database across the entire deployment? I'm thinking specifically in the
case of cells, where presumably, scheduling requests would jump through
multiple layers of Gantt services, would a single database transaction
really be possible to effectively fence the entire scheduling request?

Best,
-jay