Open Stack

Le 24 avr. 2014 19:20, "Henrique Truta" <henriquecostatruta at gmail.com> a
écrit :
>
> Donald,
>
> By "selection", I think Jenny means identifying whether and which active
VM should be migrated, once the current Nova scheduler only deals with the
VM in the momment of its creation or with a specific user input.
>

As Don said, we're beginning the process to spin-off the scheduler by
defining a line in the sand in between the sched and other Nova bits.

That's the first step before the real fork which will lead to a separate
project standing by its own, Gantt. Having that said, the scope of Gantt is
currently still subject to discussion, which will happen during a Summit
design session.

Regarding the need to have a dynamic scheduler acting also on notifications
and not only on boot requests, that could be seen either as part to Gantt,
or a separate service which would send request to Gantt for selecting
destinations. IMHO, with respect to the timeline, I would like to see the
finale endpoint going to Gantt, with a temporary Stackforge project if
necessary.

Again, IMHO, this feature request deserves its own session proposal for the
Summit. As the deadline has passed for submissions, we need to know if that
has been proposed yet so we could add it as subject of interest for Gantt
in an etherpad.

Thanks,
-Sylvain

>
> 2014-04-24 12:08 GMT-03:00 Dugger, Donald D <donald.d.dugger at intel.com>:
>
>> Jenny-
>>
>>
>>
>> You should look at the `Propose Scheduler Library blueprint’:
>>
>>
>>
>>                 https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82133/9
>>
>>
>>
>> This BP is to create a client library for making calls to the
scheduler.  If you base your work upon this library then you shouldn’t need
to care about whether the Core Scheduler is the Nova integrated scheduler
or the Gantt separated scheduler, the library will call `a` scheduler as
appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> Having said that, I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are
seeing between `selection’ and `placement’.  The current scheduler filters
all hosts based upon filters (the selection part) and then the weighting
function finds the best node to host the VM (the placement part).  Seems to
me the current scheduler does both of those tasks.  (We can argue the
effectiveness/efficiency of the current implementation but I think it’s
functionally complete.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Also, have you proposed a session at the Juno summit on your proposal
for dynamic scheduling, seems like it would be appropriate.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Don Dugger
>>
>> "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
>>
>> Ph: 303/443-3786
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jiangying (Jenny) [mailto:jenny.jiangying at huawei.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:36 AM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][ceilometer][gantt] Dynamic scheduling
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We have checked that gantt now just made a synced up copy of the code in
nova.
>>
>> We still think dynamic scheduling will be a benefit of the nova
scheduler (or gantt later). The main difference between static and dynamic
scheduling is that static scheduling is a vm placement problem, while
dynamic scheduling deals with both vm selection and vm placement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Our scheduling mechanism consists of three parts:
>>
>> 1.   Controller, which triggers the scheduling;
>>
>> 2.   Data Collector, which collects the resource usage and topo for
scheduling;
>>
>> 3.   Core Scheduler, which decides how to schedule the vms;
>>
>>
>>
>> We prefer to reuse the nova scheduler as the Core Scheduler, in order to
avoid the possible inconsistent between static scheduling and dynamic
scheduling. The vm selection function will be added into nova scheduler.
For Data Collector, we expect to get the performance data from ceilometer
and topo from nova.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is still one question that where the controller should be
implemented?
>>
>> We regard implementing the controller in nova scheduler as the first
choice. And we also consider extending ceilometer.(Ie. When ceilometer
discovers an overload host, an alarm can be reported and it can trigger a
vm evacuate.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you have any comments?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jenny
>>
>>
>>
>> 发件人: Henrique Truta [mailto:henriquecostatruta at gmail.com]
>> 发送时间: 2014年4月12日 1:00
>> 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Dynamic scheduling
>>
>>
>>
>> Is there anyone currently working on Neat/Gantt projects? I'd like to
contribute to them, as well.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-11 11:37 GMT-03:00 Andrew Laski <andrew.laski at rackspace.com>:
>>
>> On 04/10/14 at 11:33pm, Oleg Gelbukh wrote:
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>> Thank you for clarification!
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Laski <andrew.laski at rackspace.com
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The scheduler as it currently exists is a placement engine.  There is
>> sufficient complexity in the scheduler with just that responsibility so I
>> would prefer to see anything that's making runtime decisions separated
out.
>>  Perhaps it could just be another service within the scheduler project
once
>> it's broken out, but I think it will be beneficial to have a clear
>> distinction between placement decisions and runtime monitoring.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think that auto-scaling could be considered another facet of this
>> 'runtime monitoring' functionality? Now it is a combination of Heat and
>> Ceilometer. Does it worth moving to hypothetical runtime mobility service
>> as well?
>>
>>
>>
>> Auto-scaling is certainly a facet of runtime monitoring.  But
auto-scaling performs actions based on a set of user defined rules and is
very visible while the enhancements proposed below are intended to benefit
deployers and be very invisible to users.  So the set of allowable actions
is very constrained compared to what auto-scaling can do.
>> In my opinion what's being proposed doesn't seem to fit cleanly into any
existing service, so perhaps it could start as a standalone entity.  Then
once there's something that can be used and demoed a proper place might
suggest itself, or it might make sense to keep it separate.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Oleg Gelbukh
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Oleg Gelbukh
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau.513 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  @Oleg, Till now, I'm not sure the target of Gantt, is it for initial
>>
>> placement policy or run time policy or both, can you help clarify?
>>
>> @Henrique, not sure if you know IBM PRS (Platform Resource Scheduler)
>> [1],
>> we have finished the "dynamic scheduler" in our Icehouse version (PRS
>> 2.2),
>> it has exactly the same feature as your described, we are planning a live
>> demo for this feature in Atlanta Summit. I'm also writing some document
>> for
>> run time policy which will cover more run time policies for OpenStack,
>> but
>> not finished yet. (My shame for the slow progress). The related blueprint
>> is [2], you can also get some discussion from [3]
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype=
>> AN&subtype=CA&htmlfid=897/ENUS213-590&appname=USN
>> [2]
>> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/resource-
>> optimization-service
>> [3] http://markmail.org/~jaylau/OpenStack-DRS
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>> 2014-04-09 23:21 GMT+08:00 Oleg Gelbukh <ogelbukh at mirantis.com>:
>>
>> Henrique,
>>
>>
>> You should check out Gantt project [1], it could be exactly the place to
>> implement such features. It is a generic cross-project Scheduler as a
>> Service forked from Nova recently.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/openstack/gantt
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Oleg Gelbukh
>> Mirantis Labs
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Henrique Truta <
>> henriquecostatruta at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Hello, everyone!
>>
>>
>> I am currently a graduate student and member of a group of contributors
>> to OpenStack. We believe that a dynamic scheduler could improve the
>> efficiency of an OpenStack cloud, either by rebalancing nodes to
>> maximize
>> performance or to minimize the number of active hosts, in order to
>> minimize
>> energy costs. Therefore, we would like to propose a dynamic scheduling
>> mechanism to Nova. The main idea is using the Ceilometer information
>> (e.g.
>> RAM, CPU, disk usage) through the ceilometer-client and dinamically
>> decide
>> whether a instance should be live migrated.
>>
>> This might me done as a Nova periodic task, which will be executed
>> every
>> once in a given period or as a new independent project. In both cases,
>> the
>> current Nova scheduler will not be affected, since this new scheduler
>> will
>> be pluggable. We have done a search and found no such initiative in the
>> OpenStack BPs. Outside the community, we found only a recent IBM
>> announcement for a similiar feature in one of its cloud products.
>>
>> A possible flow is: In the new scheduler, we periodically make a call
>> to
>> Nova, get the instance list from a specific host and, for each
>> instance, we
>> make a call to the ceilometer-client (e.g. $ ceilometer statistics -m
>> cpu_util -q resource=$INSTANCE_ID) and then, according to some specific
>> parameters configured by the user, analyze the meters and do the proper
>> migrations.
>>
>> Do you have any comments or suggestions?
>>
>> --
>> Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://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
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://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
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> --
>> Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140424/2ece64a6/attachment.html>