fuel-dev team mailing list archive
-
fuel-dev team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00360
Re: Ceilometer+ mongo (simple and HA)
Some numbers can be found here for large amount of instances (20k) and
volumes (20k):
https://docs.google.com/a/mirantis.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtziNGvs-uPudDhRbEJJOHFXV3d0ZGc1WE9NLTVPX0E#gid=0
According to this table, it generates 339Mb/hour, or ~8Gb/day, or
~0.25Tb/month. Even on such a scale, it should survive on existing
controller nodes, if we allocate dedicated disks, does not it?
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 9:44 AM, Mike Scherbakov <mscherbakov@xxxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:
> +David, Nadya
>
> Hi Max,
> as we discussed verbally there is a major concern behind - about placement
> of MongoDB. As I understand right, it is expected that there is a huge disk
> IO consumption in case of larger deployments (let's say >50 nodes).
> If it is the case, then I would agree that we may not want to use shared
> disks for MongoDB and other OpenStack components. I see two options here:
>
>
> 1. Make sure MongoDB uses dedicated disk(s) on the server where it's
> installed, and it can be part of existing controller role then
> - Nailgun can make default allocation in a way that MongoDB has
> dedicated disk by default, if there is more than one disk on the server
> (which is 100% of real cases, I assume)
> - *User's experience would be simply to enable Ceilometer
> installation by clicking on checkbox.* In simple mode, ceilometer +
> mongo will be installed on controller node. In HA mode, ceilometer + mongo
> will be installed on all 3 controllers under pacemaker control
> 2. Make sure MongoDB is installed on a separated server
> - In UI, user will have to:
> - enable ceilometer checkbox ("Install Ceilometer")
> - don't forget to add "ceilometer-db" (mongodb) role to one of
> the unallocated nodes
> - UI must ensure that this role should not intersect with any
> other
> - UI must ensure that this role is assigned to at least one
> node in the env, if ceilometer checkbox is enabled
> - UI must ensure that this role is assigned to at least 3
> different unallocated nodes in case of HA deployment mode, to ensure that
> we will have Ceilometer HA (we can skip this, but add logic that if we have
> more than one mongo - we must build cluster)
>
> In terms of simplicity and ease of use, I would vote for option #1, while
> leaving ability to place MongoDB on a separate server via Fuel CLI for
> customized deployments. #1 solves the issue with disk IO by providing
> dedicated disk(s).
>
> > Do we need HA Cluster with non-HA Mongo?
> For consistency over Fuel story, I vote for HA for all OpenStack
> components, if HA mode is chosen. So my opinion is no - we do not need such
> a case.
>
> > Puppet manifest are finished
> Great! Please pull request them asap - we will need time for reviews. I
> hope we can complete manifests for HA story by the end of the week too.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 3, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Max Mazur <mmaxur@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>>
>> I'd like to add to Fuel the following options:
>>
>> 1. Simple install
>> - Ceilometer with MongoDB or Ceilometer wit If customer selected Mongo
>> it is necessary to deploy one more node with MongoDB
>> Puppet manifest are finished
>>
>> 2. HA Mode
>> - Ceilometer with MongoDB replica set. In this case we need 3 MongoDB
>> nodes to build HA replica set.
>> Puppet manifests are in progress now
>>
>>
>> Do we need HA Cluster with non-HA Mongo?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Max Mazur
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> Post to : fuel-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Mike Scherbakov
> #mihgen
>
--
Mike Scherbakov
#mihgen
Follow ups
References