cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
Subject Re: Storage Quality-of-Service Question
Date Fri, 01 Feb 2013 05:07:00 GMT
So, Marcus, you're thinking these values would be available for any Compute
or Disk Offerings regardless of the type of Primary Storage that back them,
right?

Is there a way we denote Optional fields of this nature in CS today (a way
in which the end user would understand that these fields are not honored by
all Primary Storage types necessarily)?

Thanks for the info!


On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:46 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>wrote:

> I would start by creating a functional spec, then people can give
> input and help solidify exactly how it's implemented. There are
> examples on the wiki. Or perhaps there is already one describing the
> feature that you can comment on or add to. I think a good place to
> start is simply trying to get the values into the offerings, and
> adjusting any database schemas necessary to accomodate that. Once the
> values are in the offerings, then it can be up to the various storage
> pool types to implement or not.
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > Cool...thanks, Marcus.
> >
> > So, how do you recommend I go about this?  Although I've got recent CS
> code
> > on my machine and I've built and run it, I've not yet made any changes.
>  Do
> > you know of any documentation I could look at to learn the process
> involved
> > in making CS changes?
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:36 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, it would need to be a part of compute offering separately, along
> >> the CPU/RAM and network limits. Then theoretically they could
> >> provision OS drive with relatively slow limits, and a database volume
> >> with higher limits (and higher pricetag or something).
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the info, Marcus!
> >> >
> >> > So, you are thinking that when the user creates a new Disk Offering
> that
> >> he
> >> > or she would be given the option of specifying Max and Min IOPS?  That
> >> > makes sense when I think of Data Disks, but how does that figure into
> the
> >> > kind of storage a VM Instance runs off of?  I thought the way that
> works
> >> > today is by specifying in the Compute Offering a Storage Tag.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks!
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> So, this is what Edison's storage refactor is designed to accomplish.
> >> >> Instead of the storage working the way it currently does, creating
a
> >> >> volume for  a VM would consist of the cloudstack server (or volume
> >> >> service as he has created) talking to your solidfire appliance,
> >> >> creating a new lun, and using that. Now instead of a giant pool/lun
> >> >> that each vm shares, each VM has it's own LUN that is provisioned on
> >> >> the fly by cloudstack.
> >> >>
> >> >> It sounds like maybe this will make it into 4.1 (I have to go through
> >> >> my email today, but it sounded close).
> >> >>
> >> >> Either way, it would be a good idea to add this into the disk
> >> >> offering, a basic IO and throughput limit, and then whether you
> >> >> implement it through cgroups on the Linux server, or at the SAN
> level,
> >> >> or through some other means on VMware or Xen, the values are there
to
> >> >> use.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> >> >> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Hi everyone,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A while back, I had sent out a question regarding storage quality
> of
> >> >> > service.  A few of you chimed in with some good ideas.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Now that I have a little more experience with CloudStack (these
> past
> >> >> couple
> >> >> > weeks, I've been able to get a real CS system up and running,
> create
> >> an
> >> >> > iSCSI target, and make use of it from XenServer), I would like
to
> >> pose my
> >> >> > question again, but in a more refined way.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > A little background:  I worked for a data-storage company in
> Boulder,
> >> CO
> >> >> > called SolidFire (http://solidfire.com).  We build a highly
> >> >> fault-tolerant,
> >> >> > clustered SAN technology consisting exclusively of SSDs.  One
of
> our
> >> main
> >> >> > features is hard quality of service (QoS).  You may have heard
of
> QoS
> >> >> > before.  In our case, we refer to it as hard QoS because the end
> user
> >> has
> >> >> > the ability to specify on a volume-by-volume basis what the maximum
> >> and
> >> >> > minimum IOPS for a given volume should be.  In other words, we
do
> not
> >> >> have
> >> >> > the user assign relative high, medium, and low priorities to
> volumes
> >> (the
> >> >> > way you might do with thread priorities), but rather hard IOPS
> limits.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > With this in mind, I would like to know how you would recommend
I
> go
> >> >> about
> >> >> > enabling CloudStack to support this feature.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In my previous e-mail discussion, people suggested using the
> Storage
> >> Tag
> >> >> > field.  This is a good idea, but does not fully satisfy my
> >> requirements.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > For example, if I created two large SolidFire volumes (by the
way,
> one
> >> >> > SolidFire volume equals one LUN), I could create two Primary
> Storage
> >> >> types
> >> >> > to map onto them.  One Primary Storage type could have the tag
> >> >> "high_perf"
> >> >> > and the other the tag "normal_perf".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I could then create Compute Offerings and Disk Offerings that
> >> referenced
> >> >> > one Storage Tag or the other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > This would guarantee that a VM Instance or Data Disk would run
from
> >> one
> >> >> > SolidFire volume or the other.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The problem is that one SolidFire volume could be servicing
> multiple
> >> VM
> >> >> > Instances and/or Data Disks.  This may not seem like a problem,
but
> >> it is
> >> >> > because in such a configuration our SAN can no longer guarantee
> IOPS
> >> on a
> >> >> > VM-by-VM basis (or a data disk-by-data disk basis).  This is called
> >> the
> >> >> > Noisy Neighbor problem.  If, for example, one VM Instance starts
> >> getting
> >> >> > "greedy," it can degrade the performance of the other VM Instances
> (or
> >> >> Data
> >> >> > Disks) that share that SolidFire volume.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Ideally we would like to have a single VM Instance run on a single
> >> >> > SolidFire volume and a single Data Disk be associated with a single
> >> >> > SolidFire volume.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How might I go about accomplishing this design goal?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Thanks!!
> >> >> >
> >> >> > --
> >> >> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> >> >> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> >> >> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >> >> > o: 303.746.7302
> >> >> > Advancing the way the world uses the
> >> >> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
> >> >> > *™*
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> >> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> >> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> >> > o: 303.746.7302
> >> > Advancing the way the world uses the
> >> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
> >> > *™*
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *Mike Tutkowski*
> > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> > e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> > o: 303.746.7302
> > Advancing the way the world uses the
> > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
> > *™*
>



-- 
*Mike Tutkowski*
*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
o: 303.746.7302
Advancing the way the world uses the
cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
*™*

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message