<font size=2 face="sans-serif">In addition to the other questions below,
I was wondering if you could explain why you included all those integer
IDs; aren't the UUIDs sufficient?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Mike</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">From:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">To:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">"Yathiraj Udupi
(yudupi)" <yudupi@cisco.com>, </font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Cc:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">OpenStack Development
Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org></font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Date:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">10/08/2013 12:41 AM</font>
<br><font size=1 color=#5f5f5f face="sans-serif">Subject:
</font><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Re: [openstack-dev]
[scheduler] APIs for Smart Resource Placement - Updated Instance Group
Model and API extension model - WIP Draft</font>
<br>
<hr noshade>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Thanks. I have a few questions.
First, I am a bit stymied by the style of API documentation used
in that document and many others: it shows the first line of an HTTP request
but says nothing about all the other details. I am sure some of those
requests must have interesting bodies, but I am not always sure which ones
have a body at all, let alone what goes in it. I suspect there may
be some headers that are important too. Am I missing something?</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
That draft says the VMs are created before the group. Is there a
way today to create a VM without scheduling it?</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
As I understand your draft, it lays out a three phase process for a client
to follow: create resources without scheduling or activating them, then
arrange them into groups, then schedule & activate them. By "activate"
I mean, for a VM instance, to start running it. That ordering must
hold independently for each resource. Activations are invoked by
the client in an order that is consistent with (a) runtime dependencies
that are mediated directly by the client (e.g., string slinging in the
heat engine) and (b) the nature of the resources (for example, you can
not attach a volume to a VM instance until after both have been created).
Other than those considerations, the ordering and/or parallelism
is a degree of freedom available to the client. Have I got this right?</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Couldn't we simplify this into a two phase process: create groups and resources
with scheduling, then activate the resources in an acceptable order?</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
FYI: my group is using Weaver as the software orchestration technique,
so there are no runtime dependencies that are mediated directly by the
client. The client sees a very simple API: the client presents a
definition of all the groups and resources, and the service first schedules
it all then activates in an acceptable order. (We already have something
in OpenStack that can do activations in an acceptable order, right?) Weaver
is not the only software orchestration technique with this property. The
simplicity of this API is one reason I recommend software orchestration
techniques that take dependency mediation out of the client's hands. I
hope that with coming work on HOT we can get OpenStack to this level of
API simplicity. But that struggle lies farther down the roadmap...</font><font size=3>
<br>
</font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Thanks,</font><font size=3> </font><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Mike</font><font size=3> <br>
</font><tt><font size=2><br>
"Yathiraj Udupi (yudupi)" <yudupi@cisco.com> wrote on 10/07/2013
11:10:20 PM:</font></tt><font size=3> </font><tt><font size=2><br>
> <br>
> Hi, <br>
> <br>
> Based on the discussions we have had in the past few scheduler sub-<br>
> team meetings, I am sharing a document that proposes an updated
<br>
> Instance Group Model and API extension model. <br>
> This is a work-in-progress draft version, but sharing it for early
feedback. <br>
> </font></tt><a href=https://docs.google.com/document/d/><tt><font size=2 color=blue><u>https://docs.google.com/document/d/</u></font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
> 17OIiBoIavih-1y4zzK0oXyI66529f-7JTCVj-BcXURA/edit?usp=sharing <br>
> <br>
> This model support generic instance types, where an instance can <br>
> represent a virtual node of any resource type. But in the context
<br>
> of Nova, an instance refers to the VM instance. <br>
> <br>
> This builds on the existing proposal for Instance Group Extension
as<br>
> documented here in this blueprint: https://<br>
> blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/instance-group-api-extension <br>
> <br>
> Thanks,</font></tt><font size=3> </font><tt><font size=2><br>
> Yathi. _______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<br>
</font></tt><a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev"><tt><font size=2>http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</font></tt></a><tt><font size=2><br>
</font></tt>
<br>