[openstack-dev] [Congress] [Delegation] Meeting scheduling

ruby.krishnaswamy at orange.com ruby.krishnaswamy at orange.com
Wed Mar 18 17:05:23 UTC 2015


o) custom constraint class
What did you mean by the “custom” constraint class?

  Did you mean we specify a “meta model” to specify constraints?  And then each “Policy” specifying a constraint  ( ) will lead to generation of the constraint in that meta-model.
Then the solver-scheduler could pick up the constraint?

This then will not require the “solver scheduler” to implement specific constraint classes such as “MemoryCapacityConstraint”.

We may have rules (not in sense of Datalog ☺ ) for name (e.g. variables or constants) generation?


De : Tim Hinrichs [mailto:thinrichs at vmware.com]
Envoyé : mercredi 18 mars 2015 16:34
À : OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Objet : Re: [openstack-dev] [Congress] [Delegation] Meeting scheduling

I responded in the gdoc.  Here’s a copy.

One of my goals for delegation is to avoid asking people to write policy statements specific to any particular domain-specific solver.  People ought to encode policy however they like, and the system ought to figure out how best to enforce that policy  (delegation being one option).

Assuming that's a reasonable goal, I see two options for delegation to  solverScheduler

(1) SolverScheduler exposes a custom constraint class.  Congress generates the LP program from the Datalog, similar to what is described in this doc, and gives that LP program as custom constraints to the  SolverScheduler.  SolverScheduler is then responsible for enforcing that policy both during provisioning of new servers and for monitoring/migrating servers once provisioning is finished.

(2) The Congress adapter for SolverScheduler understands the semantics of MemoryCapacityConstraint, identifies when the user has asked for that constraint, and replaces that part of the LP program with the MemoryCapacityConstraint.

We probably want a combination of (1) and (2) so that we handle any gaps in the pre-defined constraints that SolverScheduler has, while at the same time leveraging the pre-defined constraints when possible.


On Mar 17, 2015, at 6:09 PM, Yathiraj Udupi (yudupi) <yudupi at cisco.com<mailto:yudupi at cisco.com>> wrote:

Hi Tim,

I posted this comment on the doc.  I am still pondering over a possibility of have a policy-driven scheduler workflow via the Solver Scheduler placement engine, which is also LP based like you describe in your doc.
I know in your initial meeting, you plan to go over your proposal of building a VM placement engine that subscribes to the Congress DSE,  I probably will understand the Congress workflows better and see how I could incorporate this proposal to talk to the Solver Scheduler to make the placement decisions.

The example you provide in the doc, is a very good scenario, where a VM placement engine should continuously monitor and trigger VM migrations.

I am also interested in the case of a policy-driven scheduling for the initial creation of VMs. This is where say people will call Nova APIs and create a new set of VMs. Here the scheduler workflow should address the constraints as imposed from the user's policies.

Say the simple policy is " Host's free RAM >= 0.25 * Memory_Capacity"
I would like the scheduler to use this policy as defined from Congress, and apply it during the scheduling as part of the Nova boot call.

I am really interested in and need help in coming up with a solution integrating Solver Scheduler, so say if I have an implementation of a "MemoryCapacityConstraint", which takes a hint value "free_memory_limit" (0.25 in this example),
could we have a policy in Datalog

placement_requirement(id) :-
solver_scheduler:applicable_constraints(id, ["MemoryCapacityConstraint", ]),
applicable_metadata(id, {"free_memory_limit": 0.25, })

This policy could be set and delegated by Congress to solver scheduler via the "set_policy" API. or the Solver Scheduler can query Congress via a "get_policy" API to get this policy, and incorporate it as part of the solver scheduler workflow ?
Does this sound doable ?


On 3/16/15, 11:05 AM, "Tim Hinrichs" <thinrichs at vmware.com<mailto:thinrichs at vmware.com>> wrote:

Hi all,

The feedback on the POC delegation proposal has been mostly positive.  Several people have asked for a meeting to discuss further.  Given time zone constraints, it will likely be 8a or 9a Pacific.  Let me know in the next 2 days if you want to participate, and we will try to find a day that everyone can attend.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe


Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150318/d1eef73e/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list