cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ram Ganesh <>
Subject RE: AutoScale feature....
Date Wed, 04 Jul 2012 01:58:51 GMT
I am in the process of updating the functional specs with lot of details as Chiradeep asked
for in his earlier email and bring out which component is doing what, load balancer vs CloudStack
vs Guest VM. I hope we will get more clarity post that and can enhance further to make it
as generic as possible for other to implement this feature


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Nalley []
> Sent: 04 July 2012 06:40
> To:
> Subject: Re: AutoScale feature....
> On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 8:23 PM, Youcef Laribi
> <> wrote:
> >>I see where you are coming from. The point is not about treating one
> LB preferentially over another. It is the LB-centric nature of the
> proposal.
> >>Surely it should be possible to have an implementation that does not
> involve any LB at all (like the AWS auto scaling groups). The proposed
> API is very much like the AWS auto-scaling >API, but is useless without
> the Netscaler. Historically CloudStack almost always has had defaults
> that work without any external devices. I think if you propose a
> generic UI and a generic >API then it becomes important to follow this
> precedent.
> >>
> >>I also submit that it doesn't have to be "months". I wager that some
> level of re-factoring of your proposal / code should get us to this
> state.
> >
> > This is not about code re-factoring. We are leveraging *existing*
> features on NetScaler (like monitoring, policy-based triggering,
> aggregating stats, etc.) that we thankfully don't have to code. In any
> case, we don't have the resources, time or interest in (re)implementing
> this inside CloudStack so that it can be used without a NetScaler.
> >
> > Our goal is to surface an "LB" autoscale capability that NetScaler
> provides, so that CS users can take advantage of it when they are
> deploying with a NetScaler. We have gone to great lengths to make the
> API LoadBalancer-agnostic, to leave the door open for other
> loadbalancers who have a similar capability.
> >
> > Youcef
> >
> So I am hoping that there is some disconnect here.
> I don't think that Chiradeep was asking for you to implement this
> feature in CloudStack itself, but rather to make the framework that
> you already are going to have to build a bit more generic. This allows
> others to build on your work.
> That said, two different committers have suggested a more generic move
> (albeit Chiradeep has done a far more eloquent and pragmatic job than
> I) and this email suggests an unwillingness to consider those
> comments.
> --David

View raw message