<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:SimSun;
panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang="ZH-CN" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi, Devananda,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">I agree with you that new features should be towards Ironic.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As you asked why use Ironic instead of lm-sensors, actually I just want to use IPMI instead of lm-sensors. I think it is reasonable to put the IPMI part into Ironic
and we already did</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">To get the sensors’ information, I think IPMI is much more powerful than lm-sensors.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Firstly, IPMI is flexible. Generally speaking, it provides two kinds of connections, in-bind and out-of-band.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Out-of-band connection allows us to get sensors’ status even without OS and CPU.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">In-band connection is quite similar to lm-sensors, It needs the OS kernel to get sensor data.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Secondly, IPMI can gather more sensors’ information that lm-sensors and it is easy to use. From my own experience, using IPMI can get all the sensor information
that lm-sensors could get, such as temperature/voltage/fan. Besides that, IPMI can get power data and some OEM specific sensor data.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Thirdly, I think IPMI is a common spec for most of OEMs. And most of servers are integrated with IPMI interface.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">As you sais, nova-compute is already supplying information to the scheduler and power/temperature should be gathered locally. IPMI can be used locally, the in-band
connection. And there is a lot of open source library, such as OpenIPMI, FreeIPMI, which provide the interfaces to OS, just like lm-sensors.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a name="_MailEndCompose"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">So, I prefer to use IPMI than lm-sensors. Please leave your comments if you disagree</span></a><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Best wishes<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">--fengqian<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""> Devananda van der Veen [mailto:devananda.vdv@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, December 19, 2013 3:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] [Ironic] Get power and temperature via IPMI<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:00 PM, Gao, Fengqian <<a href="mailto:fengqian.gao@intel.com" target="_blank">fengqian.gao@intel.com</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">Hi, all,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I am planning to extend bp
<a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/utilization-aware-scheduling" target="_blank">
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/utilization-aware-scheduling</a> with power and temperature. In other words, power and temperature can be collected and used for nova-scheduler just as CPU utilization.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US">I have a question here. As you know, IPMI is used to get power and temperature and baremetal implements IPMI functions in Nova. But baremetal driver is being
split out of nova, so if I want to change something to the IPMI, which part should I choose now? Nova or Ironic?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Hi!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">A few thoughts... Firstly, new features should be geared towards Ironic, not the nova baremetal driver as it will be deprecated soon (<a href="https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/deprecate-baremetal-driver" target="_blank">https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/deprecate-baremetal-driver</a>).
That being said, I actually don't think you want to use IPMI for what you're describing at all, but maybe I'm wrong.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">When scheduling VMs with Nova, in many cases there is already an agent running locally, eg. nova-compute, and this agent is already supplying information to the scheduler. I think this is where the facilities for gathering
power/temperature/etc (eg, via lm-sensors) should be placed, and it can reported back to the scheduler along with other usage statistics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">If you think there's a compelling reason to use Ironic for this instead of lm-sensors, please clarify.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Cheers,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US">Devananda<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>