[openstack-dev] [nova][keystone] Pike PTG recap - quotas
sean at dague.net
Fri Mar 3 21:43:35 UTC 2017
The irc conversations have been continuing in #openstack-dev, which has
had a solid mix of Nova and Keystone folks quite active in that.
Out of it we've started to form 2 documents in the keystone-specs
1) A high level spec on an unified limits approach -
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/440815/ - this is my attempt to take
what was presented at the PTG of existing ideas, and put them into some
common document. It stays out of the details of some of the interfaces
per say, and tries to get a bit of a higher level agreement.
2) one of the things that becomes clear is that folks want to
immediately jump into thinking about what the enforcement strategies for
hierarchical quotas will be. It turns out defining these rules, and the
error conditions, fro hierarchies that have more than depth 2 is hard.
Especially when the implications of computing usage comes out. Also,
personally, it's too much brain power for me to take pseudo code or even
ascii art, and visualize it in my head.
This document https://review.openstack.org/#/c/441203 uses blockdiag to
lay out a few models, and put names on them. *This is not complete*
however once we have models, scenarios in those models, what works and
doesn't, and have names which are more meaningful than overbooking
(which we realized was meaning different things to different people).
People are welcome to append their own models and ideas here.
At some point, we'll start talking about which model(s) OpenStack will
support. The answer might be multiple, but until we explore the space,
jumping to conclusions about what really fits here is going to be tough.
On 03/01/2017 09:19 AM, Lance Bragstad wrote:
> FWIW - There was a lengthy discussion in #openstack-dev yesterday
> regarding this .
>  http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-dev/%23openstack-dev.2017-02-28.log.html#t2017-02-28T17:39:48
> On Wed, Mar 1, 2017 at 5:42 AM, John Garbutt <john at johngarbutt.com
> <mailto:john at johngarbutt.com>> wrote:
> On 27 February 2017 at 21:18, Matt Riedemann <mriedemos at gmail.com
> <mailto:mriedemos at gmail.com>> wrote:
> > We talked about a few things related to quotas at the PTG, some in
> > cross-project sessions earlier in the week and then some on Wednesday
> > morning in the Nova room. The full etherpad is here .
> > Counting quotas
> > ---------------
> > Melanie hit a problem with the counting quotas work in Ocata with
> respect to
> > how to handle quotas when the cell that an instance is running in
> is down.
> > The proposed solution is to track project/user ID information in the
> > "allocations" table in the Placement service so that we can get
> > information for quota usage from Placement rather than the cell.
> That should
> > be a relatively simple change to move this forward and hopefully
> get the
> > counting quotas patches merged by p-1 so we have plenty of burn-in
> time for
> > the new quotas code.
> > Centralizing limits in Keystone
> > -------------------------------
> > This actually came up mostly during the hierarchical quotas
> discussion on
> > Tuesday which was a cross-project session. The etherpad for that
> is here
> > . The idea here is that Keystone already knows about the project
> > hierarchy and can be a central location for resource limits so
> that the
> > various projects, like nova and cinder, don't have to have a
> similar data
> > model and API for limits, we can just make that common in
> Keystone. The
> > other projects would still track resource usage and calculate when
> a request
> > is over the limit, but the hope is that the calculation and
> enforcement can
> > be generalized so we don't have to implement the same thing in all
> of the
> > projects for calculating when something is over quota.
> > There is quite a bit of detail in the nova etherpad  about
> > and enforcement modes, which will need to be brought up as options
> in a spec
> > and then projects can sort out what makes the most sense (there
> might be
> > multiple enforcement models available).
> > We still have to figure out the data migration plan to get limits
> data from
> > each project into Keystone, and what the API in Keystone is going
> to look
> > like, including what this looks like when you have multiple compute
> > endpoints in the service catalog, or regions, for example.
> > Sean Dague was going to start working on the spec for this.
> > Hierarchical quota support
> > --------------------------
> > The notes on hierarchical quota support are already in  and . We
> > agreed to not try and support hierarchical quotas in Nova until we
> > using limits from Keystone so that we can avoid the complexity of both
> > systems (limits from Nova and limits from Keystone) in the same
> API code. We
> > also agreed to not block the counting quotas work that melwitt is
> > since that's already valuable on its own. It's also fair to say that
> > hierarchical quota support in Nova is a Queens item at the
> earliest given we
> > have to get limits stored in Keystone in Pike first.
> > Dealing with the os-qouta-class-sets API
> > ----------------------------------------
> > I had a spec  proposing to cleanup some issues with the
> > os-quota-class-sets API in Nova. We agreed that rather than spend time
> > fixing the latent issues in that API, we'd just invest that time
> in storing
> > and getting limits from Keystone, after which we'll revisit
> deprecating the
> > quota classes API in Nova.
> >  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/nova-ptg-pike-quotas
> >  https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/ptg-hierarchical-quotas
> >  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/411035/
> I started a quota backlog spec before the PTG to collect my thoughts
> I have updated that post summit to include updated details on
> hierarchy (ln134) when using keystone to store the limits. This mostly
> came from some side discussions in the API-WG room with morgan and
> It includes a small discussion on how the idea behind quota-class-sets
> could be turned into something usable, although that is now a problem
> for keystone's limits API.
> There were some side discussion around the move to placement meaning
> ironic quotas move from vCPU and RAM to custom resource classes. Its
> worth noting this largely supersedes the ideas we discussed here in
> flavor classes:
> I don't currently plan on taking that backlog spec further, as sdague
> is going to take moving this all forward.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev