Open Stack

On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 6:03 PM, Nick Barcet <nick.barcet at canonical.com>wrote:

> On 05/04/2012 02:25 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Nick Barcet <nick.barcet at canonical.com
> > <mailto:nick.barcet at canonical.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Following up on the discussion on IRC yesterday during the metering
> >     meeting, I'd like to explain my proposal to add the notion of source
> >     to the schema of our event.  The current goal we have for ceilometer
> >     is to provide a common way to accumulate counters/meters from
> >     various openstack component in a central repository that can be then
> >     used by other tools to produce bills in fine.   One thing we can
> >     currently assume in Essex is that all components share a common
> >     repository for identity management: Keystone.  This is the
> >     assumption we made when defining the existing schema. However, I
> >     think we need to plan a little further ahead here, and allow for
> >     this not to necessarily remain the same in some complex deployment
> >     cases.
> >
> >     For example, it could be envisioned that some software, outside of
> >     the OpenStack project, maybe deployed and used on top of an
> >     OpenStack deployment.  This software may need to be billed to
> >     customers, and collecting meters for it maybe as important for the
> >     provider than doing it for OpenStack components. It cannot be
> >     assumed that the identity management used by  the software will be
> >     keystone. The software may not provide a metering interface built
> >     in, and it would make sense for the provider to be able to implement
> >     this using existing tool present in the underlying OpenStack
> >     deployment: ceilometer.
> >
> >     In order to allow for this I think it would make sense to:
> >     * extend the current schema to allow for an additional "source"
> >     field in the event record.  This should be a short identifier.
> >
> >
> > That makes sense. It seems like the identifier(s) used are meant to be
> > defined by the deployer. Is that your intent?
>
> Correct.  We'll just need a sane default for Keystone.
>

You're focusing on source as the origin for the identity information, but
it seems like a layer sitting on top of OpenStack may well use Keystone for
identity but generate different billable events. Should "source" be the
origin of the metric data being sent to ceilometer?


>
> >
> >     * add another record definition that maps source to identity
> >     managment URL location
> >     * Collecting agent would be in charge to specify the source they map
> >     to (keystone by default).
> >
> >
> > It is not clear why the identity management location needs to be
> > recorded in ceilometer. If the deployer controls the source strings,
> > they know what each value means. The only thing that needs to translate
> > the (source, project, user) values to a billing identity is the
> > end-consumer of all of this data, which is also under the control of the
> > deployer. Couldn't the mapping of the source token to the identity
> > location be handled in that layer?
>
> True.  It might be over-engineering to try to keep the info in the same
> place as well, but the impact on the system would be negligible. I'd be
> happy either ways :)


It will be easier to add it later if we really need it than to take it out
if we decide we don't.

Doug
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120504/45b318a3/attachment.html>