Open Stack

Le 08/07/2014 13:18, Lisa a écrit :
> Hi Sylvain,
>
> On 08/07/2014 09:29, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
>> Le 08/07/2014 00:35, Joe Gordon a écrit :
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2014 9:50 AM, "Lisa" <lisa.zangrando at pd.infn.it
>>> <mailto:lisa.zangrando at pd.infn.it>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hi all,
>>> >
>>> > during the last IRC meeting, for better understanding our proposal
>>> (i.e the FairShareScheduler), you suggested us to provide (for the
>>> tomorrow meeting) a document which fully describes our use cases.
>>> Such document is attached to this e-mail.
>>> > Any comment and feedback is welcome.
>>>
>>> The attached document was very helpful, than you.
>>>
>>> It sounds like Amazon's concept of spot instances ( as a user facing
>>> abstraction) would solve your use case in its entirety. I see spot
>>> instances as the general solution to the question of how to keep a
>>> cloud at full utilization. If so then perhaps we can refocus this
>>> discussion on the best way for Openstack to support Amazon style
>>> spot instances.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Can't agree more. Thanks Lisa for your use-cases, really helpful for
>> understand your concerns which are really HPC-based. If we want to
>> translate what you call Type 3 in a non-HPC world where users could
>> compete for a resource, spot instances model is coming to me as a
>> clear model.
>
> our model is similar to the Amazon's spot instances model because both
> try to maximize the resource utilization. The main difference is the
> mechanism used for assigning resources to the users (the user's offer
> in terms of money vs the user's share). They differ even on how they
> release the allocated resources. In our model, the user, whenever
> requires the creation of a Type 3 VM, she has to select one of the
> possible types of "life time" (short = 4 hours, medium = 24 hours,
> long = 48 hours). When the time expires, the VM is automatically
> released (if not explicitly released by the user).
> Instead, in Amazon, the spot instance is released whenever the spot
> price rises.
>


That's just another trigger so the model is still good for defining what
you say "Type 3" :-)

>
>>
>> I can see that you mention Blazar in your paper, and I appreciate
>> this. Climate (because that's the former and better known name) has
>> been kick-off because of such a rationale that you mention : we need
>> to define a contract (call it SLA if you wish) in between the user
>> and the platform.
>> And you probably missed it, because I was probably unclear when we
>> discussed, but the final goal for Climate is *not* to have a
>> start_date and an end_date, but just *provide a contract in between
>> the user and the platform* (see
>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Blazar#Lease_types_.28concepts.29 )
>>
>> Defining spot instances in OpenStack is a running question, each time
>> discussed when we presented Climate (now Blazar) at the Summits :
>> what is Climate? Is it something planning to provide spot instances ?
>> Can Climate provide spot instances ?
>>
>> I'm not saying that Climate (now Blazar) would be the only project
>> involved for managing spot instances. By looking at a draft a couple
>> of months before, I thought that this scenario would possibly involve
>> Climate for best-effort leases (see again the Lease concepts in the
>> wiki above), but also the Nova scheduler (for accounting the lease
>> requests) and probably Ceilometer (for the auditing and metering side).
>>
>> Blazar is now in a turn where we're missing contributors because we
>> are a Stackforge project, so we work with a minimal bandwidth and we
>> don't have time for implementing best-effort leases but maybe that's
>> something we could discuss. If you're willing to contribute to an
>> Openstack-style project, I'm personnally thinking Blazar is a good
>> one because of its little complexity as of now.
>>
>
>
> Just few questions. We read your use cases and it seems you had some
> issues with the quota handling. How did you solved it?
> About the Blazar's architecture
> (https://wiki.openstack.org/w/images/c/cb/Climate_architecture.png):
> the resource plug-in interacts even with the nova-scheduler?
> Such scheduler has been (or will be) extended for supporting the
> Blazar's requests?
> Which relationship there is between nova-scheduler and Gantt?
>
> It would be nice to discuss with you in details.
> Thanks a lot for your feedback.
> Cheers,
> Lisa
>

As said above, there are still some identified lacks in Blazar, but we
miss resources for implementing these. Quotas is one of them, but some
people in Yahoo! expressed their interest in Climate for implementing
deferred quotas, so it could be done in the next cycle.

As nova-scheduler is not enduser-facing (no API), we're driving a call
to nova-api for placing resources thanks to aggregates. That's also why
we're looking at Gantt, because it would be less tricky for doing this.


-Sylvain

>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Sylvain
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> > Thanks a lot.
>>> > Cheers,
>>> > Lisa
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> <mailto: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
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140708/7fc2936b/attachment.html>