Open Stack

Hi folks

IMO, quantum should follow the nova scheduler architecture.
Because the scheduler problem is common in nova, quantum, cinder ( may be
glance ).
We have done tons of discussion about scheduling staff in nova-scheduler.
so  why not start to archive nova-network compatible scheduling ,
such as we are working on floating ips or security groups?

Scheduling have also role of distribute load for resource efficient way.
nova-scheduler has pluggable architecture and some driver implement
different scheduling
strategies.
There are also several availability strategites ( N-Act, M-Sby, Act-Act,
Act-hot standby)  and methods (VRRP or simple vip based failover) based on
service requirement.
These strategies could be implemented as a one nova-scheduler driver.

( IMO, in future, nova-scheduler should be one core Project )




2012/11/27 Vinay Bannai <vbannai at gmail.com>

> Gary,
>
> Given a lack of a standard way of dealing with active/standby DHCP server,
> I agree that LB does provide an interesting allure to piggy back on top of
> that.
> I am all for discussing this further but I would also like to explore if a
> more simpler solution exists.
>
> Please see my comments and questions in-line.
>
> Vinay
>
> On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 3:50 AM, Gary Kotton <gkotton at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>>  On 11/27/2012 06:06 AM, Mark McClain wrote:
>>
>> All-
>>
>> I wanted to continue the discussion from the today's meeting about the L3 agents.  The two proposed solutions take different approaches, so I think we first should agree on what we're trying to solve: scaling or availability or both.
>>
>> Nachi and Yong call their proposal "scheduler", but really it is really a horizontal scale out model.  Scheduling is the means they've chosen to distribute the load.  While their solution scales out horizontally, it does not address fully availability.  Gary's proposal fronts the l3 services with a load balancing like service.  It addresses availability by using an active/standby setup, but does not cover what happens when vertical scaling maxes out due to too many tenant networks and/or routers to fit on a physical node.
>>
>> I think the answer is to do both by incorporating a combination of the two proposals.  The L3 and DHCP agents are different enough that we may not be able to find a universal solution and that's is ok.
>>
>> Lastly, deployers have different SLAs and may even have different SLAs for different tenants, so we need to make sure we have a foundation for vendors and deployers to meet their varying SLAs.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>> It would be great if we could have a universal solution. I feel that due
>> to the different roles of the services this will be very challenging to
>> achieve. I'll try and explain in more detail below.
>>
>> *DHCP agents*:
>> At the moment each DHCP agent is able to allocate the IP address for a
>> specific mac address. Each agent has this information as it is received
>> from the notifications from the Quantum service. The problems with the DHCP
>> agent are as follows (please feel free to add or remove):
>> i. For each networking providing DHCP services (currently only
>> implemented by dnsmasq in Quantum) a dnsmasq process is created by the
>> agent. This is problematic when the number of networks is large.
>>
>
> I am not sure that would be a problem. Can we quantify the impact of
> handling large networks?
>
>
>> ii. When interacting with Nova firewall rules are created to enable the
>> traffic to arrive from the DHCP server to the VM. This is problematic if
>> the DHCP agent terminates and the VM wishes to renew a IP.
>>
>
> I saw that in a previous post, Dan also mentioned this. I am a little
> curious as why the Nova firewall rules need to be tweaked. Isn't the VM
> connected to the bridge (in case of a VLAN)? Or is it only for the case
> where GRE or other non-L2 based overlays are used?
>
>
>>
>> Originally I suggested that we use a load balancer to distribute the
>> traffic amongst the DHCP agents. Sadly this is not relevant for two reasons:
>> i. HA proxy does not have UDP support. This would have enabled a virtual
>> IP address for the DHCP server => no changes to the nova rules. The load
>> balancer would have detected if agents were down and redirect traffic to
>> agents that are up.
>> ii. It does not address point #ii above. I suggested to have a flag or
>> configuration variable for each agent that indicate a list of networks that
>> the agent can service.  This will enable the agent to limit the resources
>> that can be consumed on a specific host. Naturally the devil is in the
>> details on how one can go about this if it is relevant.
>>
>> I think that if we had the "supported list of networks" configurable for
>> the DHCP agents then the vendor can deploy as many DHCP agents as she/he
>> wishes. I would prefer that this information is not on the Quantum service
>> but locally on the agents. This will offer a solution for scale and high
>> availability of DHCP resources.
>>
>> Only problem is the ensuring that the DHCP traffic gets to the VM :). I
>> do not think that it is feasible to update the hosts each time with a rule
>> for a new DHCP agent that is added. One option to consider to to rewrite
>> the source IP of the traffic sent from the DHCP agent. This is essentially
>> what is done by a load balancer.
>>
>
> I am not clear again as to why the host needs to be updated for each new
> DHCP agent.
>
>
>>
>> *L3 agents*:
>> Problems here are:
>> i. HA - what if a L3 agent goes down.
>> ii. Scale - how can we deploy a number of l3 agents
>> iii. Amount of firewall rules
>>
>> In the first case if the L3 agent goes down then someone accessing a
>> floating IP will be unable to access that IP. This is something that is
>> critical for anyone running a cloud.
>>
>> I have thought about a number of options but each has its shortcomings:
>> i. L3 agents to run VRRP. This will enable l3 agents to work in an active
>> backup pair. This requires a number of changes to the agent. Each agent
>> will have the same configuration enabling them to treat inbound and
>> outbound traffic.
>> ii. Transparent load balancing - HA proxy does not support this
>> iii. Having the agents rewrite the destination MAC address of the default
>> GW (the l3 agent). This solves outbound traffic but inbound is problematic
>> iv. Running l3 agents on each host could ensure that the traffic
>> generated on those hosts has floating IP's. This would require us to change
>> the implementation of the l3 agents to only build firewall rules for
>> devices on the HOST.
>>
>> None of the above deal with the firewall rules. This is something that
>> can be addressed in a similar way to the DHCP agent with the L3 agents
>> specifically indicating which routers it will support (this is already
>> implemented when namespaces are not supported)
>>
>> Thanks
>> Gary
>>
>>
>>  mark
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing listOpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.orghttp://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Vinay Bannai
> Email: vbannai at gmail.com
> Google Voice: 415 938 7576
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20121127/1aba00e4/attachment.html>