incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kelcey Damage \(BBITS\)" <kel...@bbits.ca>
Subject RE: system VM out of CloudStack
Date Wed, 18 Jul 2012 20:40:50 GMT
For me, it sounds like putting them on a separate service layer would be helpful, especially
in highly custom environments.

I do like the thought of load-balanced system VMs.

Kelcey Jamison-Damage
Infrastructure Systems Architect

Backbone IT Service | Backbone Datavault | Backbone Technology
55 East 7th Ave Vancouver - BC Canada V5T 1M4
kelcey@bbits.ca | 604-331-1152 ext. 114


-----Original Message-----
From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:36 PM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Kelceydamage@bbits
Subject: RE: system VM out of CloudStack



> -----Original Message-----
> From: dan@soleks.com [mailto:dan@soleks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:56 AM
> To: Kelceydamage@bbits
> Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: system VM out of CloudStack
> 
> Agree, as any changes it will create some level of complexity - but 
> question is - is that solution better then existing one ? Even for 
> multi-zone deployment it's easier to keep separate pool of VMs of the 
> same type, then to have deep hierarchy inside zone. In additional That 
> system VMs (especially CPVM) can be behind loadbalancer, so it will be 
> really beneficial for environment with big number of console sessions, 
> and it can be scaled pretty easy.

Actually, we have internally talked about to move system VMs(secondary storage vm, console
proxy vm, router vm, even the API server) to a separate service layer.
CloudStack core will be an Orchestration layer, with lot of extension points, and manage above
service VMs, also provide essential services(VM related, such as volume/network/VM etc.) to
other services.
In your case, IMHO, what you really need is a separate or customized way to create SSVM, CPVM
in CloudStack, either these VMs can be running on bare mental hardware, or behind a Load Balancer.
How do you think?

> 
> > I think I see your point, however would that not pose a large 
> > increase in logistics for huge multi-zone deployments?
> >
> > What if it were an optional feature. One could choose to abstract 
> > the system VMs from the cloud, but was not forced to?
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:31 AM, dan@soleks.com wrote:
> >
> >> Yep, like management servers running on the stand-alone hosts, or 
> >> they are VMs on the separate infrastructure.
> >>
> >> > By "Will it be good idea to move that VMs out of CloudStack" do
> you
> >> > mean onto separate infrastructure? As in a non-managed 
> >> > hypervisor,
> or
> >> > bare-metal?
> >> >
> >> > Sent from my iPhone
> >> >
> >> > On Jul 18, 2012, at 10:20 AM, dan@soleks.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Hi all,
> >> >>
> >> >> System VMs - SSVM and CPVM- both are critical components for 
> >> >> CloudStack infrastructure, and as everybody probably noticed
> there
> >> >> are a lot of questions related to that VMs. Will it be good idea
> to
> >> >> move that VMs out of CloudStack, so they will be fully 
> >> >> segregated from the cloud controlled by CS and from user's VMs. 
> >> >> Eventually Cloudstack System will be - System Environment  - 
> >> >> Management
> Hosts
> >> >> (or VMs), SS Hosts (or VMs) and CP Hosts (or VMs) and Users 
> >> >> Environment - Computational Hosts, VMs and Storage. Any thoughts 
> >> >> about it ?
> >> >>
> >> >> Dan/borei.
> >> >>
> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> >> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Mime
View raw message