[Openstack] Allowing clients to pass capability requests through tags?
jaypipes at gmail.com
Fri Feb 11 19:12:59 UTC 2011
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Brian Schott <bfschott at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like RESTful APIs. Nearly got myself fired trying (unsuccessfully) to get my organization to switch from MeetingMaker to Zimbra, but that is another story...
Hehe, sounds like something to chat about over a beer at the next
design summit ;)
> How is instanceType passed using OpenStack API? Clearly, it is used in nova/compute. We want to make sure our approach is consistent with "flavors" if I understand the OpenStack API correctly. I see in flavors.py that is uses the instance_types.py defined data.
Yup, a flavor in OpenStack is almost the same as an instanceType in EC2.
The issue isn't necessarily how to pass instance type, but how to pass
*arbitrary* client request parameters, so I thought that user_data in
the EC2 API was a good place for those, and was wondering (kinda out
loud ;) ) what the best "field" or "place" would be on the OpenStack
API side of things for that kind of arbitrary client request
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <flavors xmlns="http://docs.openstack.org/compute/api/v1.1">
> <flavor id="1" name="256 MB Server" ram="256" disk="10"/>
> <flavor id="2" name="512 MB Server" ram="512" disk="20"/> </flavors>
> So, we would want to make the same flavor attributes available through list-flavors.
> Brian Schott
> bfschott at gmail.com
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> Hi Brian,
>> Good input, thanks for the clarifications!
>> Please remember that Nova also supports the OpenStack API, too, not
>> just the EC2 API, so we need a solution that is more than just the EC2
>> API. Nothing wrong with your solution, of course! Just want to have
>> parity on the OpenStack API side too :)
>> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 1:24 PM, Brian Schott <bfschott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> In the EC2 API, the field is:
>>> Field: instanceType, Type: xs:string, The instance type (e.g., m1.small).
>>> or InstanceType in the RunInstances Action.
>>> I thought about the user_data field, but the problem is that so many application frameworks use it to pass things like arbitrary shell scripts. Both UserData and InstanceType are xs:string types in the XML schema, just UserData is required to be Base64-encoded MIME.
>>> Our team has verified that you can pass somewhat arbitrary strings using -t with euca2ools and they appear unmolested in the create() function in nova/compute/api.py. We've already prototyped an "architecture" aware scheduler using the instanceType field as the designator, so that -t 'sh1.4xlarge' goes to our SGI UltraViolet machine and -t 'tp.8x8' goes to one of the Tilera TileEmpower (tiled 64-core non-x86) boards.
>>> We've added a bunch of instance types to nova/compute/instance_types.py) to accommodate our target virtual machine types:
>>> - 'tp.8x8': dict(memory_mb=16384, vcpus=64, local_gb=500, flavorid=6),
>>> - 'sh1.4xlarge': dict(memory_mb=520192, vcpus=128, local_gb=500, flavorid=13)
>>> Right now, we're switching on the label, which is I think is a bad idea. I need to capture this in a blueprint for Diablo, but what we're proposing is to expand the instance_types dictionary to include additional fields and possibly turn it into a full editable table so that openstack deployments can advertise additional capabilities as new instance_types beyond the Amazon defaults.
>>> - 'tp.8x8': dict(memory_mb=16384, vcpus=64, local_gb=500, cpu_arch='tilemp', cpu_geometry='8x8', net_gbps=5, flavorid=6), would advertise an 8x8 tile of cores (the entire chip currently) on a TileraMP Pro with requested reserved network bandwidth of 5 gbps.
>>> - 'p7.large+gpu': dict(memory_mb=32768, vcpus=8, local_gb=1024, cpu_arch='p7' gpu_arch='fermi' gcpus=448, flavorid=7), would advertise a Power7 CPU with GPU acceleration of 448 cores (like an nVidia c2050 board).
>>> What I like about Justin's proposal, is that we can request to OVERRIDE these default attributes or pass through additional specifications using the same instance types field without breaking existing toolchains or even the semantics of the InstanceType field.
>>> For example:
>>> euca-run-instances -n 10
>>> -t "m1.small;net_gb=1,topology='cluster',local_gb=200,near_vol='vol0001'" ...
>>> - is me asking for 10 small nodes with 1 gigabit network bandwidth, 200GB of local disk per instance, and optimized for cluster computing (minimize hops) preferably near my existing block storage volume.
>>> This is semantically consistent with what InstanceTypes are all about. Doesn't interfere with the default Amazon instance types which are pretty standard for better or worse, but also doesn't lock us into only supporting standard Amazon instance types.
>>> I threw a lot of concepts in this post. There is a role for zones also, but some of these scheduler hints don't really fit zones defined during datacenter deployment.
>>> Justin, I'd be happy to work with you if you think your blueprint matches above. We're actually pretty close to having a bexar-branched prototype working in nova-hpc branch.
>>> Brian Schott
>>> bfschott at gmail.com
>>> On Feb 11, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 7:21 PM, Brian Schott <bfschott at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Our USC-ISI team is very interested in this. We are implementing different architecture types beyond x86_64. We are also interested in suggesting switch topology for MPI cluster jobs, passing in requests for GPU accelerators, etc. Currently, our approach has been to specify these through instance_types. What you describe is more flexible, but I wonder if for EC2 api we could stretch the -t flag.
>>>> Just to make something clear, the EC2 API has nothing to do with the
>>>> -t flag. That is specific to the eucatools (or ec2 CLI tools). The
>>>> request that goes through to the EC2 API controller (in nova, this is
>>>> nova.api.ec2.cloud.CloudController), passing to the controller an XML
>>>> packet that has a variety of fields that the controller then looks for
>>>> in populating the database with information about the instance to spin
>>>> up. Tacking on something to the -t flag would be a total hack that
>>>> wouldn't be particularly future-proof.
>>>> I think that perhaps the user_data field in the XML might be a better
>>>> choice, since this has a more free-form capacity than a very specific
>>>> instance_type code that the EC2 API controller looks for.
>>>> The root of the problem here, though, is how can the clients that
>>>> request new instances be spun up (or volumes be attached) send a set
>>>> of custom attributes that define the requirements that the request
>>>> entails? There are many, many attributes that should be able to attach
>>>> to a request:
>>>> * What zone the instance/volume should be in
>>>> * What zone(s) the instance/volume should be *near*
>>>> * What hardware/architecture the instance should be placed on
>>>> * What service-level agreement a zone or group of volumes should be
>>>> running under
>>>> etc, etc.
>>>> We need to figure out a way of sending this type of request data
>>>> without a) breaking the existing API, and b) allows the scheduler
>>>> nodes to route requests more intelligently by looking at these
>>>> additional attributes of the request from the client.
>>>> My initial thought is to make a simple Middleware class whose only
>>>> purpose is to look for certain fields in the HTTP request body or
>>>> headers (client_request?) and place those attributes in the wsgi
>>>> environ mapping so that middleware further down the "pipe" (such as
>>>> the Scheduler controllers) can easily pull this data out and more
>>>> intelligently route client requests to the zone scheduler controllers
>>>> that meet the requirements sent from the client.
More information about the Openstack