fuel-dev team mailing list archive

[Dmitriy Novakovskiy <dnovakovskiy@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Andrey, Dmitriy

I've just realized that CPU overcommitment setting is defined not for
Controllers but for Compute nodes, and may differ on per-node basis. So,
the 2nd "harm" example that I exposed a few emails ago (with failed and
redeployed controller resulting in inconsistent overcommitment behavior) is
irrelevant.

With this in mind, 3rd example is even worse :)

3) User goes through architecture workshop and capacity planning exercise,
decides on CPU overcommit rates he/she will use for OpenStack cloud. User
deploys the cloud with, let's say, 20+ compute nodes. Now, w/o CPU
overcommit setting on GUI, User will:
- get a cloud that's inconsistent with decisions made during planning
- be not aware of this - GUI did not point user to a need of specifying
this setting
- be frustrated and put under risk - if the cloud is deployed with real
workloads the compute nodes will soon become over provisioned and
unreliable due to default Fuel setting (prod KVM clouds often use
super-soft overcommit setting, or no overcommit at all)
- finally - *user will have to MANUALLY specify and maintain overcommit
setting across 20+ compute nodes.*

 Doesn't sound like a good UX from cloud lifecycle management app :) - Fuel
will quickly be ditched in favor of config management tool.

So, my proposal on CPU overcommitment setting is following:

- Expose it in Wizard on hypervisor selection screen
- To simplify things initially - implement the setting as a drop-down list,
with 2 options:
-- No CPU overcommitment (1:1)
-- Light CPU overcommitment (3:1)
-- Heavy CPU overcommitment (6:1) --- default setting in BOM calculator


---
Regards,
Dmitriy


On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Andrey Danin <adanin@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think, we can add to openstack.yaml a special tag "advanced" to every
> advanced parameter, and UI can hide all such parameters for every group
> under the button "show more options". Also we can add the "expand all
> hidden options" button at the top of the tab. I don't think it's hard to
> implement.
>
> Let's wait an opinion of UI team.
> On Jun 24, 2014 1:58 PM, "Meg McRoberts" <mmcroberts@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Jesse and others make a very good point.  The Settings screen has already
>> become a real mess
>> that needs to be split up and organized a bit.  I'm told that the serious
>> restructuring should come
>> after we implement the plug-ins scheme (currently planned for 6.0).  And
>> each section definitely
>> needs an "Advanced" section for configurations that aren't routine.
>>
>> So do we wait to restructure the "Settings" screen until the plug-ins
>> scheme is implemented?  I
>> think breaking it up into sub-sections would make it more usable in the
>> meantime but I don't know
>> if it's worth the effort to do that ahead of the plug-ins.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Jesse Pretorius <
>> jesse.pretorius@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 23 June 2014 23:02, Dmitry Borodaenko <dborodaenko@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Adding a configuration variable that can easily be changed after
>>>> deployment is completed into Fuel is a slippery slope, you risk
>>>> spamming the already overcrowded Fuel settings page with dozens of
>>>> trivial (and not so trivial) options from every OpenStack component.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree, the fact of the matter is that Fuel facilitates the
>>> deployment of configuration to all nodes in the environment in a consistent
>>> manner. This is essential to deploy a reliable and supportable environment.
>>>
>>> In order to maintain the simplicity of the UI, but also provide access
>>> to OpenStack's customisable configuration, why not do something like add an
>>> 'advanced' button into the UI. Under there, the additional options can be
>>> provided, and things that are already 'Advanced' (like the scheduler, the
>>> Ceph replication factor, etc) can move under the 'Advanced' button for each
>>> section.
>>>
>>> An additional very beneficial feature in the Advanced section would be
>>> to allow any arbitrary key-value pairs for any settings that a user may
>>> wish to deploy into the configuration files for the appropriate system (eg:
>>> nova.conf). The user can be warned that these will not be validated and
>>> that they are used at the user's own risk. This can allow any number of
>>> OpenStack underlying features to be used without requiring a specific UI
>>> for it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
> --
> 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
>
>