Open Stack

On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Ildikó Váncsa <ildiko.vancsa at ericsson.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I've started to work on the idea of supporting a kind of tenant/project
> based configuration for Ceilometer. Unfortunately I haven't reached the
> point of having a blueprint that could be registered until now. I do not
> have a deep knowledge about the collector and compute agent services, but
> this feature would require some deep changes for sure. Currently there are
> pipelines for data collection and transformation, where the counters can be
> specified, about which data should be collected and also the time interval
> for data collection and so on. These pipelines can be configured now
> globally in the pipeline.yaml file, which is stored right next to the
> Ceilometer configuration files.
>

Yes, the data collection was designed to be configured and controlled by
the deployer, not the tenant. What benefits do we gain by giving that
control to the tenant?


>
> In my view, we could keep the dynamic meter configuration bp with
> considering to extend it to dynamic configuration of Ceilometer, not just
> the meters and we could have a separate bp for the project based
> configuration of meters.
>

Ceilometer uses oslo.config, just like all of the rest of OpenStack. How
are the needs for dynamic configuration updates in ceilometer different
from the other services?

Doug



>
> If it is ok for you, I will register the bp for this per-project tenant
> settings with some details, when I'm finished with the initial design of
> how this feature could work.
>
> Best Regards,
> Ildiko
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neal, Phil [mailto:phil.neal at hp.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 11:50 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer] Dynamic Meters in Ceilometer
>
> For multi-node deployments, implementing something like inotify would
> allow administrators to push configuration changes out to multiple targets
> using puppet/chef/etc. and have the daemons pick it up without restart.
> Thumbs up to that.
>
> As Tim Bell suggested, API-based enabling/disabling would allow users to
> update meters via script, but then there's the question of how to work out
> the global vs. per-project tenant settings...right now we collect specified
> meters for all available projects, and the API returns whatever data is
> stored minus filtered values. Maybe I'm missing something in the
> suggestion, but turning off collection for an individual project seems like
> it'd require some deep changes.
>
> Vijay, I'll repeat dhellmann's request: do you have more detail in another
> doc? :-)
>
> -       Phil
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kodam, Vijayakumar (EXT-Tata Consultancy Ser - FI/Espoo)
> > [mailto:vijayakumar.kodam.ext at nsn.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2014 2:49 AM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Cc: chmouel at enovance.com
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer] Dynamic Meters in Ceilometer
> > From: ext Chmouel Boudjnah [mailto:chmouel at enovance.com]
> > Sent: Monday, January 06, 2014 2:19 PM
> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ceilometer] Dynamic Meters in Ceilometer
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Kodam, Vijayakumar (EXT-Tata
> > Consultancy Ser - FI/Espoo) <vijayakumar.kodam.ext at nsn.com> wrote:
> >
> > In this case, simply changing the meter properties in a configuration
> > file should be enough. There should be an inotify signal which shall
> > notify ceilometer of the changes in the config file. Then ceilometer
> > should automatically update the meters without restarting.
> >
> >
> >
> > Why it cannot be something configured by the admin with inotifywait(1)
> > command?
> >
> >
> >
> > Or this can be an API call for enabling/disabling meters which could
> > be more useful without having to change the config files.
> >
> >
> >
> > Chmouel.
> >
> >
> >
> > I haven't tried inotifywait() in this implementation. I need to check
> > if it will be useful for the current implementation.
> >
> > Yes. API call could be more useful than changing the config files
> manually.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > VijayKumar
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140108/44854ff9/attachment.html>