Open Stack

On 08/18/2013 04:04 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 08/17/2013 03:10 AM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 16 2013, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, that's the opposite of what I'm suggesting :) I'm suggesting
>>> getting rid of the resource_metadata column in the meter table and
>>> using the
>>> resource table in joins...
>>
>> I think there's a lot of scenario where this would fail, like for
>> example instances being resized; the flavor is a metadata.
> 
> I'm proposing that in these cases, a *new* resource would be added to
> the resource table (and its ID inserted in meter) table with the new
> flavor/instance's metadata.
> 
>> Though, changing the schema to improve performance is a good one, this
>> needs to be thought from the sample sending to the storage, through the
>> whole chain. This is something that will break a lot of current
>> assumption; that doesn't mean it's bad or we can't do it, just that we
>> need to think it through. :)
> 
> Yup, understood completely. The change I am proposing would not affect
> any assumptions made from the point of view of a sample sent to storage.
> The current assumption is that a sample's *exact* state at time of
> sampling would be stored so that the exact sample state could be
> reflected even if the underlying resource that triggered the sample
> changed over time.
> 
> All I am proposing is a change to the existing implementation of that
> assumption: instead of storing the original resource metadata in the
> meter table, we instead ensure that we store the resource in the
> resource table, and upon new sample records being inserted into the
> meter table, we check to see if the resource for the sample is the same
> as it was last time. If it is, we simply insert the resource ID from
> last time. If it isn't, we add a new record to the resource table that
> describes the new resource attributes, and we insert that new resource
> ID into the meter table for that sample...

I'm assuming we wouldn't need a backlink to the older resource?

I'm thinking about how this would work work Events and Request ID's. The
two most common reports we run from StackTach are based on Request ID
and some resource ID.

"Show me all the events related to this Request UUID"
"Show me all the events related to this <Instance/Image/Network/etc> UUID"

A new Resource entry would be fine so long as it was still associated
with the underlying Resource UUID (instance, image, etc). We could get
back a list of all the Resources with the same UUID and, if needed,
lookup the metadata for it. This would allow us to see how to the
resource changed over time.

I think that's what you're suggesting ... if so, yep.

As for the first query "... for this Request ID", we'd have to map Event
many related Resources since one event could have a related
instance/image/network/volume/host/scheduler, etc.

These relationships would have to get mapped when the Event is turned
into Meters. Changing the Resource ID might not be a problem if we keep
a common Resource UUID. I have to think about that some more.

Would we use timestamps to determine which Resource is the most recent?


-S




> Best,
> -jay
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev