<div dir="ltr">Hi Kevin,<div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2013/12/2 Fox, Kevin M <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kevin.fox@pnnl.gov" target="_blank">kevin.fox@pnnl.gov</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
I just want to run a crazy idea up the flag pole. TripleO has the concept of an under and over cloud. In starting to experiment with Docker, I see a pattern start to emerge.<br>
<br>
* As a User, I may want to allocate a BareMetal node so that it is entirely mine. I may want to run multiple VM's on it to reduce my own cost. Now I have to manage the BareMetal nodes myself or nest OpenStack into them.<br>
* As a User, I may want to allocate a VM. I then want to run multiple Docker containers on it to use it more efficiently. Now I have to manage the VM's myself or nest OpenStack into them.<br>
* As a User, I may want to allocate a BareMetal node so that it is entirely mine. I then want to run multiple Docker containers on it to use it more efficiently. Now I have to manage the BareMetal nodes myself or nest OpenStack into them.<br>
<br>
I think this can then be generalized to:<br>
As a User, I would like to ask for resources of one type (One AZ?), and be able to delegate resources back to Nova so that I can use Nova to subdivide and give me access to my resources as a different type. (As a different AZ?)<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Have you ever heard about Climate [1], our Stackforge project for reservations as a service in Openstack ? I'm just saying that because your usecases seem pretty identical as the ones we defined for starting the project...</div>
<div><br></div><div>Climate is aiming to reserve both virtual (instances, stacks, etc.) and physical (compute hosts) resources [2]. There is no overhead with hypervisors, that's only matter of saying 'this node is for me, I'll be booting anything I want on it", provided the hypervisor would be KVM, Xen-API, or Baremetal (of course, with the Baremetal driver, you would then only get a lock)</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>That said, I'm just talking about Climate for making sure we don't generate silos and duplicate stuff. I still have to think about how we can plug TripleO resources as native resources for Climate, so in that case TripleO would just have to call Climate for provisioning the resources.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Sylvain</div><div><br></div><div>[1] : <a href="https://launchpad.net/climate">https://launchpad.net/climate</a></div><div>[2] : <a href="https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprint-nova-planned-resource-reservation-api">https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blueprint-nova-planned-resource-reservation-api</a></div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
I think this could potentially cover some of the TripleO stuff without needing an over/under cloud. For that use case, all the BareMetal nodes could be added to Nova as such, allocated by the "services" tenant as running a nested VM image type resource stack, and then made available to all tenants. Sys admins then could dynamically shift resources from VM providing nodes to BareMetal Nodes and back as needed.<br>
<br>
This allows a user to allocate some raw resources as a group, then schedule higher level services to run only in that group, all with the existing api.<br>
<br>
Just how crazy an idea is this?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Kevin<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev" target="_blank">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>