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: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER
Date Tue, 04 Jun 2013 18:54:58 GMT
"To ensure that we are in sync on terminology, volume, in these
definitions, refers to the physical allocation on the device, correct?"

Yes...when I say 'volume', I try to mean 'SAN volume'.

To refer to the 'volume' the end user can make in CloudStack, I try to use
'CloudStack volume'.


On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> What you say here may very well make sense, but I'm having a hard time
> envisioning it.
>
> Perhaps we should draw Edison in on this conversation as he was the
> initial person to suggest the approach I took.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 12:42 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
>
>> Mike,
>>
>> It feels like we are combining two distinct concepts -- storage device
>> management and storage protocols.  In both cases, we are communicating with
>> ISCSI, but one allows the system to create/delete volumes (Dynamic) on the
>> device while the other requires the volume to be volume to be managed
>> outside of the CloudStack context.  To ensure that we are in sync on
>> terminology, volume, in these definitions, refers to the physical
>> allocation on the device, correct?  Minimally, we must be able to
>> communicate with a storage device to move bits from one place to another,
>> read bits, delete bits, etc.  Optionally, a storage device may be able to
>> managed by CloudStack.  Therefore, we can have a unmanaged iSCSI device
>> onto which we store a Xen SR, and we can have a managed SolidFire iSCSI
>> device on which CloudStack is capable of allocating LUNs and storing
>> volumes.  Finally, while CloudStack may be able to manage a device, an
>> operator may chose to leave it unmanaged by CloudStack (e.g. the device is
>> shared by many services, and the operator has chosen to dedicate only a
>> portion of it to CloudStack).  Does my reasoning make sense?
>>
>> Assuming my thoughts above are reasonable, it seems appropriate to strip
>> the management concerns from StoragePoolType, add the notion of a storage
>> device with an attached driver that indicates whether or not is managed by
>> CloudStack, and establish a abstraction representing a physical allocation
>> on a device separate that is associated with a volume.  With these notions
>> in place, hypervisor drivers can declare which protocols they support and
>> when they encounter a device managed by CloudStack, utilize the management
>> operations exposed by the driver to automate allocation.  If these
>> thoughts/concepts make sense, then we can sit down and drill down to a more
>> detailed design.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>>
>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Here is the difference between the current iSCSI type and the Dynamic
>> type:
>> >
>> > iSCSI type: The admin has to go in and create a Primary Storage based on
>> > the iSCSI type. At this point in time, the iSCSI volume must exist on
>> the
>> > storage system (it is pre-allocated). Future CloudStack volumes are
>> created
>> > as VDIs on the SR that was created behind the scenes.
>> >
>> > Dynamic type: The admin has to go in and create Primary Storage based
>> on a
>> > plug-in that will create and delete volumes on its storage system
>> > dynamically (as is enabled via the storage framework). When a user
>> wants to
>> > attach a CloudStack volume that was created, the framework tells the
>> > plug-in to create a new volume. After this is done, the attach logic for
>> > the hypervisor in question is called. No hypervisor data structure
>> exists
>> > at this point because the volume was just created. The hypervisor data
>> > structure must be created.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> These are new terms, so I should probably have defined them up front
>> for
>> >> you. :)
>> >>
>> >> Static storage: Storage that is pre-allocated (ex. an admin creates a
>> >> volume on a SAN), then a hypervisor data structure is created to
>> consume
>> >> the storage (ex. XenServer SR), then that hypervisor data structure is
>> >> consumed by CloudStack. Disks (VDI) are later placed on this hypervisor
>> >> data structure as needed. In these cases, the attach logic assumes the
>> >> hypervisor data structure is already in place and simply attaches the
>> VDI
>> >> on the hypervisor data structure to the VM in question.
>> >>
>> >> Dynamic storage: Storage that is not pre-allocated. Instead of
>> >> pre-existent storage, this could be a SAN (not a volume on a SAN, but
>> the
>> >> SAN itself). The hypervisor data structure must be created when an
>> attach
>> >> volume is performed because these types of volumes have not been
>> pre-hooked
>> >> up to such a hypervisor data structure by an admin. Once the attach
>> logic
>> >> creates, say, an SR on XenServer for this volume, it attaches the one
>> and
>> >> only VDI within the SR to the VM in question.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:13 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Mike,
>> >>>
>> >>> The current implementation of the Dynamic type attach behavior works
>> in
>> >>> terms of Xen ISCSI which why I ask about the difference.  Another way
>> to
>> >>> ask the question -- what is the definition of a Dynamic storage pool
>> type?
>> >>>
>> >>> Thanks,
>> >>> -John
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 5:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> As far as I know, the iSCSI type is uniquely used by XenServer when
>> you
>> >>>> want to set up Primary Storage that is directly based on an iSCSI
>> >>> target.
>> >>>> This allows you to skip the step of going to the hypervisor and
>> >>> creating a
>> >>>> storage repository based on that iSCSI target as CloudStack does that
>> >>> part
>> >>>> for you. I think this is only supported for XenServer. For all other
>> >>>> hypervisors, you must first go to the hypervisor and perform this
>> step
>> >>>> manually.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't really know what RBD is.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Mike,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Reading through the code, what is the difference between the ISCSI
>> and
>> >>>>> Dynamic types?  Why isn't RBD considered Dynamic?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>> -John
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 3:46 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> This new type of storage is defined in the Storage.StoragePoolType
>> >>> class
>> >>>>>> (called Dynamic):
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> public static enum StoragePoolType {
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      Filesystem(false), // local directory
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      NetworkFilesystem(true), // NFS or CIFS
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      IscsiLUN(true), // shared LUN, with a clusterfs overlay
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      Iscsi(true), // for e.g., ZFS Comstar
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      ISO(false), // for iso image
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      LVM(false), // XenServer local LVM SR
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      CLVM(true),
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      RBD(true),
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      SharedMountPoint(true),
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      VMFS(true), // VMware VMFS storage
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      PreSetup(true), // for XenServer, Storage Pool is set up by
>> >>>>>> customers.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      EXT(false), // XenServer local EXT SR
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      OCFS2(true),
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      Dynamic(true); // dynamic, zone-wide storage (ex. SolidFire)
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      boolean shared;
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      StoragePoolType(boolean shared) {
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          this.shared = shared;
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      }
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      public boolean isShared() {
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>          return shared;
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>      }
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>  }
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> >>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> For example, let's say another storage company wants to implement
>> a
>> >>>>>>> plug-in to leverage its Quality of Service feature. It would be
>> >>> dynamic,
>> >>>>>>> zone-wide storage, as well. They would need only implement a
>> storage
>> >>>>>>> plug-in as I've made the necessary changes to the
>> hypervisor-attach
>> >>>>> logic
>> >>>>>>> to support their plug-in.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Oh, sorry to imply the XenServer code is SolidFire specific. It
>> is
>> >>> not.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> The XenServer attach logic is now aware of dynamic, zone-wide
>> >>> storage
>> >>>>>>>> (and SolidFire is an implementation of this kind of storage).
>> This
>> >>>>> kind of
>> >>>>>>>> storage is new to 4.2 with Edison's storage framework changes.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> Edison created a new framework that supported the creation and
>> >>> deletion
>> >>>>>>>> of volumes dynamically. However, when I visited with him in
>> Portland
>> >>>>> back
>> >>>>>>>> in April, we realized that it was not complete. We realized there
>> >>> was
>> >>>>>>>> nothing CloudStack could do with these volumes unless the attach
>> >>> logic
>> >>>>> was
>> >>>>>>>> changed to recognize this new type of storage and create the
>> >>>>> appropriate
>> >>>>>>>> hypervisor data structure.
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:28 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com
>> >
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Mike,
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> It is generally odd to me that any operation in the Storage
>> layer
>> >>>>> would
>> >>>>>>>>> understand or care about details.  I expect to see the Storage
>> >>>>> services
>> >>>>>>>>> expose a set of operations that can be composed/driven by the
>> >>>>> Hypervisor
>> >>>>>>>>> implementations to allocate space/create structures per their
>> >>> needs.
>> >>>>> If
>> >>>>>>>>> we
>> >>>>>>>>> don't invert this dependency, we are going to end with a massive
>> >>>>> n-to-n
>> >>>>>>>>> problem that will make the system increasingly difficult to
>> >>> maintain
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> enhance.  Am I understanding that the Xen specific SolidFire
>> code
>> >>> is
>> >>>>>>>>> located in the CitrixResourceBase class?
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>> -John
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> To delve into this in a bit more detail:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Prior to 4.2 and aside from one setup method for XenServer, the
>> >>> admin
>> >>>>>>>>> had
>> >>>>>>>>>> to first create a volume on the storage system, then go into
>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> hypervisor
>> >>>>>>>>>> to set up a data structure to make use of the volume (ex. a
>> >>> storage
>> >>>>>>>>>> repository on XenServer or a datastore on ESX(i)). VMs and data
>> >>> disks
>> >>>>>>>>> then
>> >>>>>>>>>> shared this storage system's volume.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> With Edison's new storage framework, storage need no longer be
>> so
>> >>>>>>>>> static
>> >>>>>>>>>> and you can easily create a 1:1 relationship between a storage
>> >>>>> system's
>> >>>>>>>>>> volume and the VM's data disk (necessary for storage Quality of
>> >>>>>>>>> Service).
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> You can now write a plug-in that is called to dynamically
>> create
>> >>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> delete
>> >>>>>>>>>> volumes as needed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> The problem that the storage framework did not address is in
>> >>> creating
>> >>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>> deleting the hypervisor-specific data structure when
>> performing an
>> >>>>>>>>>> attach/detach.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> That being the case, I've been enhancing it to do so. I've got
>> >>>>>>>>> XenServer
>> >>>>>>>>>> worked out and submitted. I've got ESX(i) in my sandbox and can
>> >>>>> submit
>> >>>>>>>>> this
>> >>>>>>>>>> if we extend the 4.2 freeze date.
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> Does that help a bit? :)
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 1:03 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The storage plug-in - by itself - is hypervisor agnostic.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> The issue is with the volume-attach logic (in the agent code).
>> >>> The
>> >>>>>>>>>> storage
>> >>>>>>>>>>> framework calls into the plug-in to have it create a volume as
>> >>>>>>>>> needed,
>> >>>>>>>>>> but
>> >>>>>>>>>>> when the time comes to attach the volume to a hypervisor, the
>> >>> attach
>> >>>>>>>>>> logic
>> >>>>>>>>>>> has to be smart enough to recognize it's being invoked on
>> >>> zone-wide
>> >>>>>>>>>> storage
>> >>>>>>>>>>> (where the volume has just been created) and create, say, a
>> >>> storage
>> >>>>>>>>>>> repository (for XenServer) or a datastore (for VMware) to make
>> >>> use
>> >>>>>>>>> of the
>> >>>>>>>>>>> volume that was just created.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> I've been spending most of my time recently making the attach
>> >>> logic
>> >>>>>>>>> work
>> >>>>>>>>>>> in the agent code.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does that clear it up?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 12:48 PM, John Burwell <
>> >>> jburwell@basho.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain why the the storage driver is hypervisor
>> >>> specific?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, ultimately I would like to support all hypervisors that
>> >>>>>>>>>> CloudStack
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> supports. I think I'm just out of time for 4.2 to get KVM
>> in.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Right now this plug-in supports XenServer. Depending on what
>> >>> we do
>> >>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> regards to 4.2 feature freeze, I have it working for VMware
>> in
>> >>> my
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> sandbox,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> as well.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, just to be clear, this is all in regards to Disk
>> >>> Offerings.
>> >>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> plan to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> support Compute Offerings post 4.2.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <
>> >>>>>>>>>> kelcey@bbits.ca
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is there any plan on supporting KVM in the patch cycle post
>> >>> 4.2?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: "Mike Tutkowski" <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 10:12:32 AM
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree on merging Wei's feature first, then mine.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If his feature is for KVM only, then it is a non issue as I
>> >>> don't
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> support
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> KVM in 4.2.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Wei ZHOU <
>> >>> ustcweizhou@gmail.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the billing, as no one works on billing now, users
>> need
>> >>> to
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> calculate
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the billing by themselves. They can get the
>> service_offering
>> >>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk_offering of a VMs and volumes for calculation. Of
>> course
>> >>>>>>>>> it is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> better
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to tell user the exact limitation value of individual
>> volume,
>> >>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> network
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rate limitation for nics as well. I can work on it later.
>> Do
>> >>> you
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> think it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is a part of I/O throttling?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry my misunstand the second the question.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Agree with what you said about the two features.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Wei
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/6/3 John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wei,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Wei ZHOU <
>> ustcweizhou@gmail.com
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John, Mike
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope Mike's aswer helps you. I am trying to adding
>> more.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) I think billing should depend on IO statistics
>> rather
>> >>> than
>> >>>>>>>>>> IOPS
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limitation. Please review disk_io_stat if you have time.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk_io_stat
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get the IO statistics including bytes/iops read/write
>> for
>> >>> an
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> individual
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> virtual machine.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Going by the AWS model, customers are billed more for
>> >>> volumes
>> >>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provisioned IOPS, as well as, for those operations (
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/).  I would imagine our users
>> >>> would
>> >>>>>>>>> like
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> option to employ similar cost models.  Could an operator
>> >>>>>>>>> implement
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> billing model in the current patch?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) Do you mean IOPS runtime change? KVM supports
>> setting
>> >>>>>>>>> IOPS/BPS
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limitation for a running virtual machine through command
>> >>> line.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> However,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CloudStack does not support changing the parameters of a
>> >>>>>>>>> created
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offering
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (computer offering or disk offering).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant at the Java interface level.  I apologize for
>> being
>> >>>>>>>>>> unclear.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we more generalize allocation algorithms with a set of
>> >>>>>>>>> interfaces
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> describe the service guarantees provided by a resource?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) It is a good question. Maybe it is better to commit
>> >>> Mike's
>> >>>>>>>>>> patch
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk_io_throttling as Mike needs to consider the
>> >>> limitation in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypervisor
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> type, I think.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will expand on my thoughts in a later response to Mike
>> >>>>>>>>> regarding
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> touch points between these two features.  I think that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk_io_throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will need to be merged before SolidFire, but I think we
>> need
>> >>>>>>>>> closer
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coordination between the branches (possibly have have
>> >>> solidfire
>> >>>>>>>>>> track
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk_io_throttling) to coordinate on this issue.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Wei
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/6/3 John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The things I want to understand are the following:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Is there value in capturing IOPS policies be
>> captured
>> >>> in
>> >>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> common
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> data model (e.g. for billing/usage purposes, expressing
>> >>>>>>>>>> offerings).
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Should there be a common interface model for
>> reasoning
>> >>>>>>>>> about
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOP
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provisioning at runtime?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) How are conflicting provisioned IOPS configurations
>> >>>>>>>>> between
>> >>>>>>>>>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hypervisor and storage device reconciled?  In
>> particular,
>> >>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> scenario
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is lead to believe (and billed) for more IOPS
>> configured
>> >>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> a VM
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storage device has been configured to deliver.  Another
>> >>>>>>>>> scenario
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent configuration between a VM and a storage
>> >>> device at
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> creation
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time, but a later modification to storage device
>> >>> introduces
>> >>>>>>>>>> logical
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inconsistency.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:38 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi John,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I believe Wei's feature deals with controlling the max
>> >>>>>>>>> number of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOPS
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the hypervisor side.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My feature is focused on controlling IOPS from the
>> storage
>> >>>>>>>>> system
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> side.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I hope that helps. :)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, John Burwell <
>> >>>>>>>>> jburwell@basho.com
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wei,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My opinion is that no features should be merged until
>> all
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> functional
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues have been resolved and it is ready to turn
>> over to
>> >>>>>>>>> test.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total Ops vs discrete read/write ops issue is
>> addressed
>> >>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> re-reviewed
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido, I don't think this criteria has been satisfied.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how does this work intersect/compliment the
>> >>> SolidFire
>> >>>>>>>>>> patch
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> (
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/)?  As I
>> understand
>> >>> it
>> >>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> work
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also involves provisioned IOPS.  I would like to
>> ensure
>> >>> we
>> >>>>>>>>> don't
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scenario where provisioned IOPS in KVM and SolidFire
>> are
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unnecessarily
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incompatible.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Wei ZHOU <
>> >>> ustcweizhou@gmail.com
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. I will change it next week.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Wei
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/6/1 Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wei,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/01/2013 08:24 AM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly. I have pushed the features into master.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If anyone object thems for technical reason till
>> Monday,
>> >>> I
>> >>>>>>>>> will
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> revert
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For the sake of clarity I just want to mention again
>> >>> that we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> change
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the total IOps to R/W IOps asap so that we never
>> release
>> >>> a
>> >>>>>>>>>> version
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only total IOps.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You laid the groundwork for the I/O throttling and
>> that's
>> >>>>>>>>> great!
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> We
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> however prevent that we create legacy from day #1.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Wei
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/31/2013 03:59 PM, John Burwell wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read
>> >>> and
>> >>>>>>>>> write
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOPS.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't
>> see
>> >>>>>>>>> how we
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> split total IOPS into read and write.  Therefore, we
>> >>> would
>> >>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> stuck
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with a
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> total unless/until we decided to break backwards
>> >>>>>>>>> compatibility.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What Wei meant was merging it into master now so that
>> it
>> >>>>>>>>> will go
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.2 branch and add Read / Write IOps before the 4.2
>> >>> release
>> >>>>>>>>> so
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> that
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4.2
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be released with Read and Write instead of Total
>> >>> IOps.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is to make the May 31st feature freeze date. But
>> if
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> window
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moves
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (see other threads) then it won't be necessary to do
>> >>> that.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also completely agree that there is no association
>> >>> between
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> network
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disk I/O.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On May 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Wido den Hollander <
>> >>>>>>>>> wido@widodh.nl
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wei,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/31/2013 03:13 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wido,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks. Good question.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I  thought about at the beginning. Finally I decided
>> to
>> >>>>>>>>> ignore
>> >>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference of read and write mainly because the
>> network
>> >>>>>>>>>> throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> care the difference of sent and received bytes as
>> well.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That reasoning seems odd. Networking and disk I/O
>> >>> completely
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Disk I/O is much more expensive in most situations
>> then
>> >>>>>>>>> network
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bandwith.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Implementing it will be some copy-paste work. It
>> could be
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implemented in
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> few days. For the deadline of feature freeze, I will
>> >>>>>>>>> implement
>> >>>>>>>>>> it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that , if needed.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It think it's a feature we can't miss. But if it goes
>> >>> into
>> >>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>> 4.2
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> window we have to make sure we don't release with only
>> >>> total
>> >>>>>>>>>> IOps
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fix
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it in 4.3, that will confuse users.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Wei
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander <wido@widodh.nl>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Wei,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 05/30/2013 06:03 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into
>> >>> master.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If nobody object, I will merge into master in 48
>> hours.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The purpose is :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Virtual machines are running on the same storage
>> device
>> >>>>>>>>> (local
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storage or
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share strage). Because of the rate limitation of
>> device
>> >>>>>>>>> (such as
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> iops), if
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one VM has large disk operation, it may affect the
>> disk
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> performance
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other VMs running on the same storage device.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is neccesary to set the maximum rate and limit the
>> >>> disk
>> >>>>>>>>> I/O
>> >>>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VMs.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Looking at the code I see you make no difference
>> between
>> >>>>>>>>> Read
>> >>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Write
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOps.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qemu and libvirt support setting both a different rate
>> >>> for
>> >>>>>>>>> Read
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Write
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOps which could benefit a lot of users.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's also strange, in the polling side you collect
>> both
>> >>> the
>> >>>>>>>>> Read
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Write
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOps, but on the throttling side you only go for a
>> global
>> >>>>>>>>> value.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Write IOps are usually much more expensive then Read
>> >>> IOps,
>> >>>>>>>>> so it
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a valid use-case where that an admin would set a
>> >>> lower
>> >>>>>>>>>> value
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IOps vs Read IOps.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since this only supports KVM at this point I think it
>> >>> would
>> >>>>>>>>> be
>> >>>>>>>>>> of
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> value to at least have the mechanism in place to
>> support
>> >>>>>>>>> both,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> implementing
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this later would be a lot of work.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If a hypervisor doesn't support setting different
>> values
>> >>> for
>> >>>>>>>>>> read
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> write you can always sum both up and set that as the
>> >>> total
>> >>>>>>>>>> limit.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you explain why you implemented it this way?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wido
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The feature includes:
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) set the maximum rate of VMs (in disk_offering, and
>> >>>>>>>>> global
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configuration)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) change the maximum rate of VMs
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) limit the disk rate (total bps and iops)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/****
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192<ht**tps://
>> >>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/****
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ht**tps://
>> >>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <**
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FS (I will update later) :
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/******confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/******<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/****
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/**
>> >>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/**>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VM+Disk+IO+Throttling<https://****
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/****
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+****Throttling<
>> >>> https://cwiki.
>> >>>>>>>>> **
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> apache.org/confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+**Throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Merge check list :-
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Did you check the branch's RAT execution success?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * Are there new dependencies introduced?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * What automated testing (unit and integration) is
>> >>> included
>> >>>>>>>>> in
>> >>>>>>>>>> the
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> feature?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unit tests are added.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * What testing has been done to check for potential
>> >>>>>>>>> regressions?
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) set the bytes rate and IOPS rate on CloudStack UI.
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) VM operations, including
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deploy, stop, start, reboot, destroy, expunge.
>> migrate,
>> >>>>>>>>> restore
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (3) Volume operations, including
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attach, Detach
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To review the code, you can try
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> git diff
>> c30057635d04a2396f84c588127d7e******be42e503a7
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> f2e5591b710d04cc86815044f5823e******73a4a58944
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards,
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wei
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/******confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/******<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/****
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/**
>> >>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/**>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> VM+Disk+IO+Throttling<https://****
>> >>>>>>>>>>>> cwiki.apache.org/confluence/****
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+****Throttling<
>> >>> https://cwiki.
>> >>>>>>>>> **
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> apache.org/confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+**Throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] refs/heads/disk_io_throttling
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [3]
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/******jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301
>> >>>>>>>>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ht**tps://
>> >>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ht**tps://
>> >>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <**
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ht**tps://
>> >>>>>>>>> issues.apache.org/****jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> **<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> http://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071
>> >>> <
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <**
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <h**ttps://
>> >>> issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071<
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071
>> >
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (**CLOUDSTACK-1301
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -     VM Disk I/O Throttling)
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *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>
>> >>>>>>>>>>> *™*
>> >>>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>>>>> --
>> >>>>>>>>>> *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>
>> >>>>>> *™*
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> *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>
> *™*
>



-- 
*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