On Thu, May 23, 2019 at 12:16 AM Matt Riedemann <mriedemos@gmail.com> wrote:
1. Omit the validation in the API and let the scheduler do the validation.
Pros: no performance impact in the API when creating server(s)
Cons: if the host/node does not exist, the user will get a 202 response and eventually a NoValidHost error which is not a great user experience, although it is what happens today with the availability_zone forced host/node behavior we already have [3] so maybe it's acceptable.
What I had in mind when suggesting this was to actually return a Host/NodeNotFound exception from the host_manager [1] instead of confusing that with the NoValidHost exception when its actually not a NoValidHost (as this is usually associated with host capacity) if the host or node doesn't exist. I know that it has already been implemented as a NoValidHost [2] but we could change this.
3. Validate both the host and node in the API. This can be broken down:
a) If only host is specified, do #2 above. b) If only node is specified, iterate the cells looking for the node (or query a resource provider with that name in placement which would avoid down cell issues) c) If both host and node is specified, get the HostMapping and from that lookup the ComputeNode in the given cell (per the HostMapping)
Pros: fail fast behavior in the API if either the host and/or node do not exist
Cons: performance hit in the API to validate the host/node and redundancy with the scheduler to find the ComputeNode to get its uuid for the in_tree filtering on GET /allocation_candidates.
I don't mind if we did this as long as don't hit all the cells twice (in api and scheduler) which like you said could be avoided by going to placement.
Note that if we do find the ComputeNode in the API, we could also (later?) make a change to the Destination object to add a node_uuid field so we can pass that through on the RequestSpec from API->conductor->scheduler and that should remove the need for the duplicate query in the scheduler code for the in_tree logic.
I guess we discussed this in a similar(ly different) situation and decided against it [3]. [1] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/c7e9e667426a6d88d396a59cb40d30763a326... [2] https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/c7e9e667426a6d88d396a59cb40d30763a326... [3] https://review.opendev.org/#/c/646029/4/specs/train/approved/use-placement-i... -- Regards, Surya.