<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=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (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:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* 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 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
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="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Hi Jay,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">This sounds good to me. You left out the part of limits from the discussion – these filters set the limits used at the resource tracker. You also left out the
force-to-host and its effect on limits. Yes, I would agree with doing this at the resource tracker too.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">And of course the extensible resource tracker is the right way to do it
</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:#1F497D">J</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">Paul.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif""> Jay Lau [mailto:jay.lau.513@gmail.com]
<br>
<b>Sent:</b> 04 June 2014 10:04<br>
<b>To:</b> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Proposal: Move CPU and memory allocation ratio out of scheduler<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Does there is any blueprint related to this? Thanks.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">2014-06-03 21:29 GMT+08:00 Jay Pipes <<a href="mailto:jaypipes@gmail.com" target="_blank">jaypipes@gmail.com</a>>:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi Stackers,<br>
<br>
tl;dr<br>
=====<br>
<br>
Move CPU and RAM allocation ratio definition out of the Nova scheduler and into the resource tracker. Remove the calculations for overcommit out of the core_filter and ram_filter scheduler pieces.<br>
<br>
Details<br>
=======<br>
<br>
Currently, in the Nova code base, the thing that controls whether or not the scheduler places an instance on a compute host that is already "full" (in terms of memory or vCPU usage) is a pair of configuration options* called cpu_allocation_ratio and ram_allocation_ratio.<br>
<br>
These configuration options are defined in, respectively, nova/scheduler/filters/core_filter.py and nova/scheduler/filters/ram_filter.py.<br>
<br>
Every time an instance is launched, the scheduler loops through a collection of host state structures that contain resource consumption figures for each compute node. For each compute host, the core_filter and ram_filter's host_passes() method is called. In
the host_passes() method, the host's reported total amount of CPU or RAM is multiplied by this configuration option, and the product is then subtracted from the reported used amount of CPU or RAM. If the result is greater than or equal to the number of vCPUs
needed by the instance being launched, True is returned and the host continues to be considered during scheduling decisions.<br>
<br>
I propose we move the definition of the allocation ratios out of the scheduler entirely, as well as the calculation of the total amount of resources each compute node contains. The resource tracker is the most appropriate place to define these configuration
options, as the resource tracker is what is responsible for keeping track of total and used resource amounts for all compute nodes.<br>
<br>
Benefits:<br>
<br>
* Allocation ratios determine the amount of resources that a compute node advertises. The resource tracker is what determines the amount of resources that each compute node has, and how much of a particular type of resource have been used on a compute node.
It therefore makes sense to put calculations and definition of allocation ratios where they naturally belong.<br>
* The scheduler currently needlessly re-calculates total resource amounts on every call to the scheduler. This isn't necessary. The total resource amounts don't change unless either a configuration option is changed on a compute node (or host aggregate), and
this calculation can be done more efficiently once in the resource tracker.<br>
* Move more logic out of the scheduler<br>
* With the move to an extensible resource tracker, we can more easily evolve to defining all resource-related options in the same place (instead of in different filter files in the scheduler...)<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
-jay<br>
<br>
* Host aggregates may also have a separate allocation ratio that overrides any configuration setting that a particular host may have<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
OpenStack-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org" target="_blank">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><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
<br clear="all">
<br>
-- <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Jay<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>