Open Stack

On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Anne Gentle <anne at openstack.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 4:42 AM, Sylvain Bauza <sylvain.bauza at bull.net>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hi Joe,
> >> >
> >> > Thanks for your reply, I'll try to further explain.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Le 03/03/2014 05:33, Joe Gordon a écrit :
> >> >
> >> >> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Dina Belova <dbelova at mirantis.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Hello, folks!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'd like to request Climate project review for incubation. Here is
> >> >>> official
> >> >>> incubation application:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Climate/Incubation
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm unclear on what Climate is trying to solve. I read the 'Detailed
> >> >> Description' from the link above, and it states Climate is trying to
> >> >> solve two uses cases (and the more generalized cases of those).
> >> >>
> >> >> 1) Compute host reservation (when user with admin privileges can
> >> >> reserve hardware resources that are dedicated to the sole use of a
> >> >> tenant)
> >> >> 2) Virtual machine (instance) reservation (when user may ask
> >> >> reservation service to provide him working VM not necessary now, but
> >> >> also in the future)
> >> >
> >> > Climate is born from the idea of dedicating compute resources to a
> >> > single
> >> > tenant or user for a certain amount of time, which was not yet
> >> > implemented
> >> > in Nova: how as an user, can I ask Nova for one compute host with
> >> > certain
> >> > specs to be exclusively allocated to my needs, starting in 2 days and
> >> > being
> >> > freed in 5 days ?
> >> >
> >> > Albeit the exclusive resource lock can be managed on the Nova side,
> >> > there is
> >> > currently no possibilities to ensure resource planner.
> >> >
> >> > Of course, and that's why we think Climate can also stand by its own
> >> > Program, resource reservation can be seen on a more general way : what
> >> > about
> >> > reserving an Heat stack with its volume and network nested resources ?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >> You want to support being able to reserve an instance in the future.
> >> >> As a cloud operator how do I take advantage of that information? As a
> >> >> cloud consumer, what is the benefit? Today OpenStack supports both
> >> >> uses cases, except it can't request an Instance for the future.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Again, that's not only reserving an instance, but rather a complex mix
> >> > of
> >> > resources. At the moment, we do provide way to reserve virtual
> instances
> >> > by
> >> > shelving/unshelving them at the lease start, but we also give
> >> > possibility to
> >> > provide dedicated compute hosts. Considering it, the logic of resource
> >> > allocation and scheduling (take the word as resource planner, in order
> >> > not
> >> > to confuse with Nova's scheduler concerns) and capacity planning is
> too
> >> > big
> >> > to fail under the Compute's umbrella, as it has been agreed within the
> >> > Summit talks and periodical threads.
> >>
> >> Capacity planning not falling under Compute's umbrella is news to me,
> >> are you referring to Gantt and scheduling in general? Perhaps I don't
> >> fully understand the full extent of what 'capacity planning' actually
> >> is.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > From the user standpoint, there are multiple ways to integrate with
> >> > Climate
> >> > in order to get Capacity Planning capabilities. As you perhaps
> noticed,
> >> > the
> >> > workflow for reserving resources is different from one plugin to
> >> > another.
> >> > Either we say the user has to explicitly request for dedicated
> resources
> >> > (using Climate CLI, see dedicate compute hosts allocation), or we
> >> > implicitly
> >> > integrate resource allocation from the Nova API (see virtual instance
> >> > API
> >> > hook).
> >>
> >> I don't see how Climate reserves resources is relevant to the user.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > We truly accept our current implementation as a first prototype, where
> >> > scheduling decisions can be improved (possibly thanks to some tight
> >> > integration with a future external Scheduler aaS, hello Gantt), where
> >> > also
> >> > resource isolation and preemption must also be integrated with
> >> > subprojects
> >> > (we're currently seeing how to provision Cinder volumes and Neutron
> >> > routers
> >> > and nets), but anyway we still think there is a (IMHO big) room for
> >> > resource
> >> > and capacity management on its own project.
> >> >
> >> > Hoping it's clearer now,
> >>
> >> Unfortunately that doesn't clarify things for me.
> >>
> >> From the user's point of view what is the benefit from making a
> >> reservation in the future? Versus what Nova supports today, asking for
> >> an instance in the present.
> >>
> >> Same thing from the operator's perspective,  what is the benefit of
> >> taking reservations for the future?
> >>
> >> This whole model is unclear to me because as far as I can tell no
> >> other clouds out there support this model, so I have nothing to
> >> compare it to.
> >>
> >
> > Hi Joe,
> > I think it's meant to save consumers money by pricing instances based on
> > today's prices.
> >
> > https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/purchasing-options/reserved-instances/
>
>
> The reserved concept in Amazon, is very different then the one
> proposed here. The amazon concept doesn't support saying I will need
> an instance in 3 days, this is trying to support that use case.
> Furthermore  I am not sure how the climate proposal would allow a
> cloud provider to offer a cheaper offering.
>
>
It feels like it should be part of a scheduler or reservation program but
we don't have one today. We also don't have a workflow, planning, or
capacity management program, all of which these use cases could fall under.

(I should know this but) What are the options when a program doesn't exist
already? Am I actually struggling with a scope expansion beyond
infrastructure definitions? I'd like some more discussion by next week's TC
meeting.

Thanks,
Anne


> >
> > Anne
> >
> >>
> >> > -Sylvain
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140303/bb02ff94/attachment.html>