cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From cs user <acldstk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Implicit dedication vs Explicit dedication
Date Fri, 07 Oct 2016 06:54:21 GMT
I did try to dedicate a Pod to an account, however it whilst it meant other
accounts couldn't launch in the pod, it didn't force the target account to
have newly created vm's placed in that pod.

Cloudstack continued to use its regular placement algorithm, which we have
set to FirstFitPlanner, and so some vm's were still created in pods not
dedicated to the account.

This would be useful for a couple of reasons, at least for us. Firstly we
would be able to build specialized pods, which could include hardware and
also storage (faster or more capacity). We could then ensure certain
applications are forced to start within these dedicated pods.

Secondly, as we are using basic networking, we could provide additional
segregation between accounts by forcing accounts to have vm's launched in
different subnets. Now I know advanced networking would probably be a
better approach here for that but basic networking is much easier to
implement.

So perhaps what I am really asking for is another option which is per
account (or maybe even global?), which you can tick to say  -  "Restrict an
account's vm's to pods which they have had dedicated to them".

If nothing has been dedicated to the account then the option would be
ignored. If their dedicated Pods are at capacity, the deployment would
fail.



On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 2:19 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now I think I understood what you want to do.
>
> What about dedicating the pod directly, without using any changes at the
> service offering (lets avoid mixing configs in this sea of possibilities we
> have here), then you could limit the amount of resource the user can use by
> the maximum amount of (CPU/memory/ and others) that the POD has. Have you
> tried this possibility?
>
> On Thu, Oct 6, 2016 at 3:38 AM, cs user <acldstkusr@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Rafael,
> >
> > I hadn't tried allocating more VM's until the host gets full. If this
> > feature was available and it was possible to both dedicate a pod to an
> > account, and force an account to only use that pod, I would want requests
> > to fail once this pod is full.
> >
> > When I said the following with regards to the ImplicitDedicationPlanner:
> >
> > "When the account selects this service offering, the instance is created
> on
> > an empty host. Addition instances created with this service offering then
> > get put onto the same host, rather than looking for other free hosts
> within
> > the same pod."
> >
> > It seems that what happens is when you set this up you must have a free
> > host available within cloudstack, it doesn't matter which POD this host
> is
> > in. When you create a VM which has this service offering, cloudstack will
> > select a host a host to use. From this point on other VM's which have
> this
> > service offering are placed on the same host. But I as I said, I didn't
> try
> > to keep allocating vm's until that host was full as well. However it
> didn't
> > appear to me that it would force an account to stick to one pod only.
> >
> > This is from memory, I'm not in a position to retest this at the moment.
> >
> > I guess what I am asking is if it is possible with the latest version of
> > cloudstack to both dedicate a pod to an account, and force an account to
> > only be able to use that pod.
> >
> > Cheers!
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> > rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That is a good question.
> > > Sorry I have not seen your first email. I have just read it now. I
> > noticed
> > > you already tried dedicating a POD to an account.
> > >
> > > I am curious by what you meant with:
> > > "When the account selects this service offering, the instance is
> created
> > on
> > > an empty host. Addition instances created with this service offering
> then
> > > get put onto the same host, rather than looking for other free hosts
> > within
> > > the same pod."
> > >
> > > Have you tried allocating VMs until the host gets full?
> > >
> > > What do you want to happen when this dedicated POD gets full?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:14 AM, cs user <acldstkusr@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Rafael,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for responding. It is possible to force them to only be able
> to
> > > use
> > > > that pod however?
> > > >
> > > > So that when the create a machine, these machines are forced to
> launch
> > in
> > > > that pod.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 3:11 PM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> > > > rafaelweingartner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You can dedicate a pod to a user account or domain.
> > > > > Have you tried that?
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, cs user <acldstkusr@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I asked this a while back and never got a response. With the
> latest
> > > > > version
> > > > > > of Cloudstack, is it possible to force an account to launch
in a
> > > > > particular
> > > > > > pod?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:59 PM, cs user <acldstkusr@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Question regarding dedicating a Pod to an account......
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If I dedicate a Pod to an account, login as that account
and
> then
> > > > > create
> > > > > > > an instance, when it comes to the affinity screen, I get
the
> > > > following:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Please select any affinity groups you want this VM to
belong
> to"
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, what I really want to do is force this account
to only
> > be
> > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > create hosts in this pod. If this is not possible then
it
> should
> > > > > default
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > this being ticked. Is there a way to accomplish this?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I've also tried creating a new service offering and creating
it
> > > with
> > > > > > ImplicitDedicationPlanner,
> > > > > > > with planner mode strict. However, all this appears to
do is
> the
> > > > > > > following......
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > When the account selects this service offering, the instance
is
> > > > created
> > > > > > on
> > > > > > > an empty host. Addition instances created with this service
> > > offering
> > > > > then
> > > > > > > get put onto the same host, rather than looking for other
free
> > > hosts
> > > > > > within
> > > > > > > the same pod.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So to summarize.... I want to either force an account to
only
> > > launch
> > > > > > > instances in one Pod, or for this option to be the default.
Is
> > > there
> > > > a
> > > > > > way ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Rafael Weingärtner
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Rafael Weingärtner
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rafael Weingärtner
>

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