[openstack-dev] [Nova] Reconciling flavors and block device mappings
sbauza at redhat.com
Thu Aug 25 20:45:43 UTC 2016
Le 25/08/2016 16:19, Andrew Laski a écrit :
> Cross posting to gather some operator feedback.
> There have been a couple of contentious patches gathering attention
> recently about how to handle the case where a block device mapping
> supersedes flavor information. Before moving forward on either of those
> I think we should have a discussion about how best to handle the general
> case, and how to handle any changes in behavior that results from that.
> There are two cases presented:
> 1. A user boots an instance using a Cinder volume as a root disk,
> however the flavor specifies root_gb = x where x > 0. The current
> behavior in Nova is that the scheduler is given the flavor root_gb info
> to take into account during scheduling. This may disqualify some hosts
> from receiving the instance even though that disk space is not
> necessary because the root disk is a remote volume.
> 2. A user boots an instance and uses the block device mapping parameters
> to specify a swap or ephemeral disk size that is less than specified on
> the flavor. This leads to the same problem as above, the scheduler is
> provided information that doesn't match the actual disk space to be
> consumed. https://review.openstack.org/#/c/352522/
> Now the issue: while it's easy enough to provide proper information to
> the scheduler on what the actual disk consumption will be when using
> block device mappings that undermines one of the purposes of flavors
> which is to control instance packing on hosts. So the outstanding
> question is to what extent should users have the ability to use block
> device mappings to bypass flavor constraints?
> One other thing to note is that while a flavor constrains how much local
> disk is used it does not constrain volume size at all. So a user can
> specify an ephemeral/swap disk <= to what the flavor provides but can
> have an arbitrary sized root disk if it's a remote volume.
> Some possibilities:
> Completely allow block device mappings, when present, to determine
> instance packing. This is what the patches above propose and there's a
> strong desire for this behavior from some folks. But changes how many
> instances may fit on a host which could be undesirable to some.
That would completely (as you mentioned) tramples the fact that Nova
uses flavors as quantitative resource user queries and would create some
kind of conditional whether we should check if a BDM is there and also
overriding the flavor disk values.
Please, I think we should only have one single source of truth for
knowing the user disk request, which are flavors.
Of course, long-term, we could try to see how to have composite flavors
for helping users to not create a whole handful of flavors for quite the
same user requests, but that would still be flavors (or the name for
saying a flavor composition).
> Keep the status quo. It's clear that is undesirable based on the bug
> reports and proposed patches above.
The status quo is not good as well. Given that we contract on BDM sizes
in the API, we should somehow respect that contract and either accept
the request (and honor it) or refuse it gracefully (for example, say if
a flavor swap value doesn't match the swap BDM size you asked for)
> Allow block device mappings, when present, to mostly determine instance
> packing. By that I mean that the scheduler only takes into account local
> disk that would be consumed, but we add additional configuration to Nova
> which limits the number of instance that can be placed on a host. This
> is a compromise solution but I fear that a single int value does not
> meet the needs of deployers wishing to limit instances on a host. They
> want it to take into account cpu allocations and ram and disk, in short
> a flavor :)
If we consider that a flavor is the only source of truth, it means that
another possibility would be to say that when an user requests both a
flavor and a BDM, we would need to reconcile those two into one single
flavor that would be part of the RequestSpec object. That wouldn't be
the flavor the user asked, sure, but we would respect the quantitative
resource values he wanted.
> And of course there may be some other unconsidered solution. That's
> where you, dear reader, come in.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev