Open Stack

On Thu, Aug 09 2012, Nick Barcet wrote:

> Could you please explain?  Not sure I follow the "is relative" argument
> here. If we increase the periodicity of messages and send them all to
> the collector, the volume of data will increase without an ounce of a doubt.

Sure it will increase the amount of data, what I meant is that if may be
acceptable for some people, and not for others, depending on uses cases.
So it's up to the user to decide what and how much he wants to store.

> Sure, but wouldn't this end up in forcing the solution with a big
> shoehorn?

I don't think so. It's still monitoring data, it's just that you don't
want to allow anything to put them into ceilometer, so you write agents.
That's actually what we're already doing. :)

> Well, it would be adding quite a few use cases that would modify the
> scope of the project quite a bit, and I would think that at this time we
> should be focusing on delivering what we have already designed rather
> than adding new requirements.  However, you make a good point that this
> could be a topic to discuss at ODS in October.

Agreed. I don't agree nor request to add new requirements, and so far
CloudWatch does not ask for new requirements as far as I understand.

Ceilometer provides metrics polling, storage and an API to retrieve
this. We want the metrics to be used to bill.

My point being, if CloudWatch can use Ceilometer to launch new instances
instead of printing bills, I don't really see how we can block them to
do so. :)

-- 
Julien Danjou
# Free Software hacker & freelance
# http://julien.danjou.info
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20120809/bbe7a471/attachment.pgp>