incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sanjay Tripathi <sanjay.tripa...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account
Date Thu, 17 Jan 2013 07:49:58 GMT
My comments inline

-----Original Message-----
From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik.das@citrix.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:53 AM
To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account

See inline

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sanjay Tripathi [mailto:sanjay.tripathi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:23 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account
> 
> Koushik,
> 
> >What is the upgrade story? For e.g. say based on the existing VM's 
> >for an
> account, the total CPU and RAM exceeds the global maximums. What 
> happens in this case?
> 
> 
> If admin sets the limits for an account and suppose that account 
> already has existing VMs whose total CPU and RAM counts are exceeding 
> the limits, in this case CloudStack would not shut down the VMs 
> assigned to account to level the resources. If the user tries to 
> deploy a VM, CS will check the limits of that account and in this case CS will not allow
the account to deploy the VM.

This will be tricky. In this case if user tries to migrate existing VM what happens? Think
about all the possible operations on existing VMs that might get affected after upgrade.
[Sanjay] :As per the current CS behavior, user can easily migrate existing VM without facing
any limit issues. I have checked all the possible operation on existing VMs and there is one
more case i.e. if user destroys the existing VM and later tries to recover it, CS will not
allow this operation. Thanks for bringing this out, I have update the FS with these use cases.

Wouldn't making the global maximums as unlimited a better option as Chris suggested?
[Sanjay] In the existing CS behavior, CS is imposing the limits on newly created accounts/projects
through global config parameters "max.account/projects.*". In this way if admin forgets to
set any limits on account, CS already has the max values of the resource for the account.
At any point of time, admin can even set the limit more than the max limit set for the account
by global config parameters. So we should have some logical value for the new resource types
or else if we pass unlimited than there is no point of adding global configuration parameters.
  
> 
> >Also for CPU number of cores are considered, should speed also be
> considered?
> Thanks for suggestion :), we can consider speed also as a part of CPU 
> resource.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sanjay
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Sears [mailto:chris.x.sears@sungard.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:39 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Limit Resources to domain/account
> >
> > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 6:00 AM, Sanjay Tripathi 
> > <sanjay.tripathi@citrix.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Can anyone suggest that what should be the default max resource 
> > > values that an account/project can have for the following global 
> > > config
> > parameters:
> >
> >
> > It seems like the least surprising default max would be to leave 
> > them all unlimited. Otherwise, it's likely some admins will just 
> > overlook this and then just stumble upon the arbitrary limit. If you 
> > default to unlimited, only admins who need to restrict it will need 
> > to be concerned
> with the settings.
> >
> > As an aside, I wasn't clear from the FS how to specify "unlimited" in the UI.
> > Does leaving the value blank imply unlimited?
> >
> >  - Chris

Mime
View raw message