incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Deepti Dohare <deepti.doh...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, Hosts to a domain
Date Wed, 06 Mar 2013 12:49:56 GMT
Thanks Alex for the comments. Sure I will get in touch with Prachi regarding this.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Huang
> Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:50 AM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Deepti Dohare; Prachi Damle
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, Hosts
> to a domain
>
> Deepti,
>
> I have read through the update.  I have the following comments.  You can
> talk with Prachi further because she's restricting the planning process.  You
> can talk to Brian about pluggable UIs.
>
> For the Service Offering:
> - The SO flag should just be a set of name/value pairs.  Of which implicit
> dedicate is one such key.  Planner Plugins should just set their own
> name/value pairs.
> - On creation of the SO, the admin should be able to specify the Planner to
> use for a SO.  At that time, the planner is called with its pluggable UI to set
> the above name/value pair.  Then, this planner along with the name/value
> pair is passed to deploy vm.
> - With that then there should be no is_dedicated column added to the
> service-offering table.
> - There's also no isdedicated flag on the createserviceoffering call.  This
> means the service offering can be compose by other calls rather than always
> by the create service offering call.  The problem with having it in the create
> service offering  call is that now you've binded the create service offering call
> to the dedication and no one can remove it as a plugin.
>
> For the Implicit Dedication:
> - I don't see any mention of monitoring for the administrator.  So if the
> implicit pool is close to capacity, how would an administrator know?  Is there
> any type of alert?
>
> For the feature to work with different hypervisors:
> - I don't see any talks about what if the hypervisor native HA and DRS is on.
> This is a problem especially for vmware.  Do we work with this?  If we don't,
> how do we disable?  If we do, how can we work with it?
> - Also, what if someone migrates the VM outside of cloudstack, then what
> happens?
> - I talked about being able to find a VM through VM sync that the VM has
> moved to a host that doesn't match the condition and alert the admin user.
> Has this been discussed and decided against?  If it is against, how to we deal
> with the above cases?
>
> Thanks.
>
> --Alex
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:deepti.dohare@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:25 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters,
> > Hosts to a domain
> >
> > Hi all,
> > The feature Dedicated Resources "Private pod, cluster and host" is
> > updated with some changes.
> > Here is the updated FS:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Dedicated+Reso
> > urces+-+Private+pod%2C+cluster%2C+host+Functional+Spec
> >
> > Overview of updates to the feature requirement:
> > 1. Implicit Dedication: Admin can "implicitly" dedicate resources.
> > Implicit dedication can be for a zone/pod/cluster/host, but not
> > associated with any domain or account.
> > 2. A new flag in Service Offering, will indicate whether implicit
> > dedication is required or not.
> > 3. Explicit Dedication: Admin will explicitly dedicate resources to
> > domain/account.
> > 4. A new parameter in deployVirtulMachine API will indicate whether to
> > use explicitly dedicated resources or not.
> >
> > So I am planning to add a new planner that will process dedication and
> > modify existing planners/allocators to make sure dedicated-resources
> > will not be used if any of the above flag is not specified.
> >
> > Any thoughts/comments?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Deepti
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:23 PM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Kiran Koneti
> > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters,
> > > Hosts to a domain
> > >
> > > Deepti,
> > > Regarding, no.5, I concur with your statement. However, we also
> > > assume that this scenario would not arise i.e. theoretically, in a
> > > cloud, a service provider always has capacity i.e. request for a VM
> > > should not fail, unless there are any specific conditions attached
> > > (such as request with a tag and there is no host that has that tag
> > > available
> > > etc.)
> > >
> > > Hari
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:deepti.dohare@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:44 PM
> > > To: Kiran Koneti
> > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters,
> > > Hosts to a domain
> > >
> > > Hi Kiran,
> > > See my comments inline.
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Deepti
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Kiran Koneti
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:16 PM
> > > To: Deepti Dohare
> > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Subject: Regarding the Dedicated Resources - Private pod, cluster,
> > > host Functional Spec .
> > >
> > > Hi Deepti ,
> > >
> > > I have gone through the FS located in the below location and have
> > > some questions regarding the feature.
> > >
> > > FS Link:
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Dedicated+Reso
> > > urces+-+Private+pod%2C+cluster%2C+host+Functional+Spec
> > >
> > > Here are the List of Questions:
> > >
> > > 1)      Is the "Dedicated Resources Specific to OS on Dedicated HW"
> Feature
> > > also added to the same FS.(as I see that both got merged to a single
> > > feature.)
> > >
> > > [deepti] Are you asking about this feature:
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VMs+on+hardw
> > > are+dedicated+to+a+specific+account ? This feature is combined with
> > > are+dedicated+to+a+specific+the
> > > feature: Private pod, cluster, host (see the 2nd row in the table).
> > >
> > > 2)      How are we going to dedicate the pod/cluster/host to a particular
> > > account(are we using only api's or there any UI changes also to
> > > implement the same.)
> > >
> > > [deepti]  We are going to dedicate the resources using APIs only
> > > which will be added as a part of the plugin.
> > >
> > > 3)      If I dedicate a pod to an account then it is equal that I dedicated the
> > > cluster as well as the hosts in that cluster to the account?
> > >
> > > [deepti] If we dedicate a pod to an account, then all the clusters
> > > and hosts inside the pod will be automatically dedicated to that account.
> > >
> > > 4)      Adding to the above  if I have a cluster with two hosts then can I
> > > dedicate each host to a different account?
> > >
> > > [deepti] Yes we can dedicate two clusters to two accounts unless
> > > clusters or pods to which the host belongs, is not dedicated to any
> > account/domain.
> > >
> > > 5)      I have a host dedicated to an account but if I won't use the Service
> > > offering with "isdedicated" to true  and use any other offering will
> > > the VM be deployed? (case is there are no other non dedicated hosts
> > > in the pool.)
> > >
> > > [deepti] According to me, the vm deploy operation will fail if there
> > > are no non-dedicated hosts available. Will confirm this scenario.
> > >
> > > 6)      Will we use the UUID or just the ID of the pod/cluster/host in the api
> > to
> > > dedicate a particular host.
> > >
> > > [Deepti]  We are using only the UUIDs of the pod/cluster/host to
> > > dedicate the resource.
> > >
> > > 7)      Can we implement the same in the Upgraded environment also (If
> the
> > > "UUID" concept is used as the hosts upgraded from 2.2.14 doesn't
> > > contain theUUID's).
> > >
> > > [deepti] Like all other APIs, this use case will also be taken care of.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Kiran.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ram Ganesh [mailto:Ram.Ganesh@citrix.com]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:00 AM
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods,
> > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > >
> > > > Saurav,
> > > >
> > > > Good to see your concerns are addressed.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Ram
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Saurav Lahiri [mailto:saurav.lahiri@sungard.com]
> > > > > Sent: 16 January 2013 23:24
> > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods,
> > > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > >
> > > > > Deepti,
> > > > > That's great. Thanks for addressing this concern.
> > > > >
> > > > > Saurav
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Deepti Dohare
> > > > > <deepti.dohare@citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > Here is an updated PRD link for this feature:
> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/private-host-cluster-pod.h
> > > > > > tm l I am updating the FS based on the updated PRD, will be
> > > > > > sharing it
> > > > > soon.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Saurav,
> > > > > > Please see comments inline..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Deepti
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Saurav Lahiri [mailto:saurav.lahiri@sungard.com]
> > > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:29 PM
> > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > Cc: Alex Huang
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods,
> > > > > Clusters,
> > > > > > Hosts
> > > > > > > to a domain
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Deepti,
> > > > > > > From the functional spec it appears that domains that have
> > > > > > > been
> > > > > assigned
> > > > > > > dedicated pods/cluster/hosts will be restricted to only
> > > > > > > these
> > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > elements.
> > > > > > > It appears to imply that domains can use either share or
> > > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > elements
> > > > > > > but not both. Or can they use both types?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [deepti] Based on the status of the flags (mentioned in the
> > > > > > link),
> > > > > domain
> > > > > > can use dedicated or shared resources.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A use case[ not an entirely hypothetical use case] where I
> > > > > > > see the
> > > > > > described
> > > > > > > behaviour might be a limitation is where a customer would
> > > > > > > like to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > both
> > > > > > > the offerings based on the type of their requirement. They
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > expect
> > > > > > > that shared environment would be less expensive than
> > > > > > > dedicated environment and they would want to continue
> > > > > > > hosting perhaps their test/dev environment on the shared
> > > > > > > environment. But for the
> > > > > business apps
> > > > > > > they would like to use the dedicated environment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > With the current proposal do u think there is a way to
> > > > > > > achieve this
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > provide this is in a easy to use manner.
> > > > > > > Do we want to add a shared/dedicated flag with each vm
> > > > > > > instance
> > > > > creation
> > > > > > > the way Nitin had suggested.
> > > > > > > Just a thought to raise discussion around this use case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thoughts??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [deepti]  Thanks for the suggestion. We will have a dedication
> > > > > > flag
> > > > > in
> > > > > > service offering,  which will let the user choose which
> > > > > > resources he
> > > > > want (
> > > > > > dedicated or non-dedicated) which I think will handle the use
> > > > > > case
> > > > > you have
> > > > > > mentioned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If there is no available resources with the domain having
> > > > > > dedicated resources, CloudStack  will allow the user to use
> > > > > > non-dedicated
> > > > > resources
> > > > > > based on the global parameter "Implicit dedication flag".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Saurav Lahiri
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Deepti Dohare
> > > > > > > <deepti.dohare@citrix.com>wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks Alex for pointing out. I will update the FS keeping
> > > > > > > > your
> > > > > points
> > > > > > > > in mind.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:09 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate
> > > > > > > > > Pods,
> > > > > Clusters,
> > > > > > > > Hosts
> > > > > > > > > to a domain
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Deepti,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your wiki has references to defunct wiki/bug tracking.
> > > > > > > > > Please correct
> > > > > > > > that by
> > > > > > > > > moving those into the apache wiki/jira.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think the two FSes has enough details for review
> > > > > > > > > yet
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > based on APIs posted, I can see the way it is heading so
> > > > > > > > > I want
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > make some requirements on the direction.  Dedication is
> > > > > > > > > not an integral part of cloudstack.  This requirement
> > > > > > > > > means the
> > > > > following
> > > > > > things.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > - You should not add dedication as an integral part of
> > > > > > > > > the organization
> > > > > > > > units
> > > > > > > > > such as zone, pod, and cluster.  It should be in steps
> > > > > reflected in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > API.  For
> > > > > > > > > example, from an API standpoint, it should be
> > > > > > > > >         - admin adds a pod
> > > > > > > > >         - admin dedicates the pod to a domain
> > > > > > > > >         - admin enables pod.
> > > > > > > > > - UI can makes these three calls on behalf of the admin
> > > > > > > > > if you
> > > > > want
> > > > > > > > > to introduce a easy step.
> > > > > > > > > - You should add a plugin that adds dedication apis and
> > > > > implements a
> > > > > > > > > deployment planner interface.
> > > > > > > > > - In cloudstack's core code itself, you should modify
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > following
> > > > > > > > things.
> > > > > > > > >         - service offering should carry a planner name to use.
> > > > > > > > >         - deploy vm code should use the planner that's
> > > > > specified in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > service
> > > > > > > > > offering.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > --Alex
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:deepti.dohare@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:33 AM
> > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate
> > > > > > > > > > Pods, Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Based on the discussion, we have 2 separate features:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Private pod, cluster, host 2. VMs on hardware
> > > > > > > > > > dedicated to a specific account Functional specs for
> > > > > > > > > > these 2 features are posted on  Apache CloudStack
> > > > > wiki:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+for+VMs+on
> > > > > > > > > > +hardware+dedicated+to+a+specific+account
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Dedicated+Res
> > > > > > > > > o
> > > > > > > > > > urces+-
> +Private+pod%2C+cluster%2C+host+Functional+Spec
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is the first draft, and modifications will be
> > > > > > > > > > done along
> > > > > the
> > > > > > way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > > > > Deepti
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kannan@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:30 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate
> > > > > > > > > > > Pods, Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nitin,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please see inline
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hari
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:01 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate
> > > > > > > > > > > Pods, Clusters,
> > > > > > > > > > Hosts
> > > > > > > > > > > to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 27-Dec-2012, at 4:47 AM, Hari Kannan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > There is no requirement for the end user
> > > > > > > > > > > > administer the hardware -
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the OAMP, I believe the resources are
> > > > > > > > > > > > still
> > > > > owner,
> > > > > > > > > > > > administered, maintained and provisioned by the
> > > > > > > > > > > > root
> > > > > admin -
> > > > > > > > > > > > they are simply "reserved" for the said
> > > > > > > > > > > > domain/sub-domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > But, what would the admin view of all the resources be.
> > > > > Lets say
> > > > > > > > > > > he has dedicated Pod P1 to domain D1 and Cluster C1
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > domain D2
> > > > > > > > > > > and Host h1 to domain D3 then in this case how will
> > > > > > > > > > > his dashboard look
> > > > > > > > like ?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hari: Perhaps, the issue is we have a single persona
> > > > > > > > > > > called admin that
> > > > > > > > > > seems
> > > > > > > > > > > to be a catch-all. This admin role is actually
> > > > > > > > > > > composed of multiple roles - I
> > > > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > > the OAMP task as a provider side role - and hence no
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > > > than today from that perspective - i.e. the domain
> > > > > > > > > > > admin
> > > > > (which
> > > > > > > > > > > is the
> > > > > > > > > "consumer"
> > > > > > > > > > side
> > > > > > > > > > > role) need not have access to the provider side
> > > > > > > > > > > resources -
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > might be a need for Hosting environments, but for a
> > > > > > > > > > > cloud service provider as well as private clouds, I
> > > > > > > > > > > don't know if
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > is a requirement. I do agree that it would be a nice
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > feature
> > > > > > > > though..
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding CRUD/Mice's question - I don't believe
> > > > > > > > > > > > that is
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > intention -
> > > > > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > > > context, Mice wrote " but if further sub-domain is
> > > > > > > > > > > assigned
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > different pod then it cannot access its parent
> > > > > > > > > > > domain's
> > > > > pod. 2.
> > > > > > > > > > > Sub-domain and its child domains will have the sole
> > > > > > > > > > > access
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > that new pod. when child domain already has some VMs
> > > > > > > > > > > on
> > > > > parent
> > > > > > > > > > > domain's dedicated pod, is it allowed to assign a
> > > > > > > > > > > pod to
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > child domain? or the existing VMs will be migrated
> > > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > new pod?"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think of this feature more along the
> > > > > > > > > > > > lines of
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > Saurav
> > > > > > > > > > wrote
> > > > > > > > > > > " Lets say that  the resources on the pod dedicated
> > > > > > > > > > > to the child-domain are exhausted and resources on
> > > > > > > > > > > parent pod are available. In this case will
> > > > > > > > > > > provisioning of vms for the child-domain happen on
> > > > > > > > > > > parent's pod. So essentially
> > > > > provisioning
> > > > > > > > > > > has a affinity for local pods if available. And if
> > > > > resources are
> > > > > > > > > > > not available on the local pod but available on the
> > > > > > > > > > > parent
> > > > > pod
> > > > > > > > > > > then use
> > > > > > > > that.
> > > > > > > > > Would it be good to configure this  affinity"
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid affinity is not the right thing to configure.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > child domain has
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > expectation and is paying for dedicating resources
> > > > > > > > > > > just to
> > > > > > itself.
> > > > > > > > > > > If these resources exhaust we should definitely fail
> > > > > deploying
> > > > > > > > > > > his vm. Instead if we deploy it in its parent
> > > > > > > > > > > dedicated resources and still charge him premium
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > > is not correct. We should set the expectations right.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hari: I'm open to either choice - dedication can be
> > > > > interpreted
> > > > > > > > > > > differently -
> > > > > > > > > > If I
> > > > > > > > > > > have some resources dedicated, no one else can touch
> > > > > > > > > > > it, it doesn't mean I don't get anything more - my
> > > > > > > > > > > preference is
> > > > > to use
> > > > > > > > > > > a global to indicate if I
> > > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > draw from parent pool or not, with the default
> > > > > > > > > > > choice of
> > > > > "yes"
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Also what will be the change in usage ? How will we
> > > > > > > > > > > be
> > > > > metering
> > > > > > > > > > > the end user here  with dedicated resources?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I also think we need to have a flag in the service
> > > > > > > > > > > offering asking the end
> > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > > > if he/she wants to deploy vm on dedicated or shared
> > > > > resources.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hari
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:48 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Planners are also plugins.  It just means your
> > > > > > > > > > > > dedicated
> > > > > piece
> > > > > > > > > > > > needs to
> > > > > > > > > > > implement a different planner.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > We may need some cloud-engine work.  Prachi and I
> > > > > > > > > > > > talked
> > > > > about
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > idea
> > > > > > > > > > > to let the service offering contain the planner
> > > > > > > > > > > cloud-
> > > > > engine
> > > > > > > > > > > should use to deploy a vm.  You can explore that idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > But this part is just action acl.  This is the easy part.
> > > > > The
> > > > > > > > > > > > more difficult part
> > > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > > > the read part.  How do you limit what they can access.
> > > > > That
> > > > > > > > > > > part you need
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > talk with Prachi about on her design.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Is there any requirement to let the end user
> > > > > > > > > > > > administer
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > > hardware
> > > > > > > > > > since
> > > > > > > > > > > the hardware is dedicated to them?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My problem right now is the list of requirements
> > > > > > > > > > > > sent in
> > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > email is not
> > > > > > > > > > > enough.  We need to send out a list with regard to
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > following.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > - OAMP. This means (Operations, Administrations,
> > > > > Maintenance,
> > > > > > > > > > > Provisioning) of hardware/physical entities/capacities.
> > > > > Who is
> > > > > > > > > > > ultimately responsible for the OAMP aspects of the
> > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > > > > > resources?  Is it the domain admin/system amdin/ or
> > > > > > > > > > > some
> > > > > new
> > > > > > role?
> > > > > > > > > > > Depending on this, your interaction with the new ACL
> > > > > > > > > > > work
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > range from low to high.  This needs
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > be clearly outlined in the requirements.
> > > > > > > > > > > > - CRUD operations.  This means (Create, Read,
> > > > > > > > > > > > Update,
> > > > > Delete)
> > > > > > > > > > > > on virtual
> > > > > > > > > > > entities and physical entities.  How does dedication
> > > > > > > > > > > affect those
> > > > > > > > > operations?
> > > > > > > > > > > For example, questions asked by Mice in another email.
> > > > > Here,
> > > > > > > > > > > you need to gather up the list of virtual entities
> > > > > > > > > > > we have
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > specify what it means for that entities in terms of CRUD.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is not a small feature.  Tread carefully.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > --Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [mailto:Prachi.Damle@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:59 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Comments inline.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -Prachi
> > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Devdeep Singh
> > > > > > > > > > > >> [mailto:devdeep.singh@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:16 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Some queries inline
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> From: Prachi Damle
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:Prachi.Damle@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:04 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Planners and allocators work on a DeploymentPlan
> > > > > provided as
> > > > > > > > input.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> The caller can specify particular zone, pod,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> cluster,
> > > > > host,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> pool etc., to be used for deployment.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> So for enforcing the use of a dedicated pod,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> caller can
> > > > > set
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> the podId in the plan and planners will search
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> under
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> specific pod
> > > > > > > > > only.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> If a deploy vm request is from a user belonging
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to a
> > > > > domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> which has a
> > > > > > > > > > > >> dedicated resource, then setting the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> podid/clusterid
> > > > > etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> will
> > > > > > > > work.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> However, if I understand correctly there is a
> > > > > requirement
> > > > > > > > > > > >> that no user from outside the domain, should be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> able
> > > > > >>to use
> > > > > > > > > > > >> the dedicated resource. They cannot be restricted
> > > > > > > > > > > >> by how
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> planner is implemented right now. Should the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> avoid list
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> used? But it doesn't seem like the
> > > > > > > > > > right
> > > > > > > > > > > use of the field.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Yes avoid set lets you set the
> > > > > > > > > > > >> zone,pods,clusters,hosts
> > > > > to be
> > > > > > > > > > > >> avoided by the planner. It can be used for this purpose.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> There may be some changes necessary (like
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> accepting a
> > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> of pods/clusters instead of single Ids) but this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> design
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> planners should let you enforce the use of
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> dedicated resources without major
> > > > > > > > > > > >> changes to planners.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Doesn't this mean that we are changing the core
> > > > > cloudstack
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> code to
> > > > > > > > > > > >> achieve dedicated resources features?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> This change is not necessary; it is an optimization.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Also, another way is to add a custom planner say
> > > > > > > > > > > >> DedicatedResourcePlanner that will search for
> > > > > > > > > > > >> only
> > > > > dedicated
> > > > > > > > > > > >> resources
> > > > > > > > > > > for the given account.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> From: Devdeep Singh
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:devdeep.singh@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:58 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Hi Alex,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> I assume some apis will be added for letting an
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> admin dedicate a pod/cluster etc to a domain.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> This can be
> > > > > > contained in a
> > > > > > > plugin.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> However, for enforcing that a dedicated resource
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> is
> > > > > picked
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> up for servicing deploy vm requests from a user;
> > > > > wouldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> planners and allocators have to be updated to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> take care
> > > > > of
> > > > > > this?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Regards,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> Devdeep
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:21 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Deepti,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> As Chiradeep pointed out, you should get in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> contact
> > > > > with
> > > > > > Prachi.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> You should plan on this after the ACL change or
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> you
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> help out on the ACL
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> change.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> For this feature, you really need to think
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> about the
> > > > > stats
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> collection side of this because you'll need to
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> provide
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> lot of warnings about being near capacity so
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> people
> > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> plan
> > > > > > > > accordingly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> It cannot be a case of the dedicated resource
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> explodes
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> then they go and work on expanding it.  So you
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> should
> > > > > also
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> talk with Murali about how to do alerts in
> > > > > > > > > > > >>> his new notification system.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> And then in your spec, you need to plan out how
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> to do
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> in a plugin architecture and not modify the core code.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>> --Alex
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> From: Deepti Dohare
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> [mailto:deepti.dohare@citrix.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:32 AM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Dedicate
> > > > > Pods,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Hi Mice,
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Once a new pod is dedicated to the
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> child-domain, deployment of the new VMs will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> happen only  in the
> > > > > new pod.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> The existing VMs will keep running on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> parent-domain's
> > > > > pod.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Do you have any other suggestion on this.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> - Deepti
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:52 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources:
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Dedicate Pods, Clusters, Hosts to a domain
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> but if further sub-domain is assigned a
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> different
> > > > > pod
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> then it cannot access
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> its
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> parent domain's pod. 2. Sub-domain and its
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> child
> > > > > domains
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> will have the sole access to that new pod.
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> when child domain already has some VMs on
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> parent
> > > > > > > domain's
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> dedicated pod, is it allowed to assign a pod
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> to the
> > > > > child
> > > > > > > > domain?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> or the existing VMs
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> will
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> be migrated to the new pod?
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> mice
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

Mime
View raw message