← Back to team overview

openstack team mailing list archive

Re: Allowing clients to pass capability requests through tags?


I think that providers may not wish to expose the internal structure of
their network to the degree that you are suggesting. I prefer the idea of
near other object with an internal lookup into zone.
On Feb 11, 2011 9:38 AM, "Eric Day" <eday@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Sandy,
> I agree with using tags for full scheduler selection, it's something
> I've been pushing for from the start. The request contains any number
> of k/v pairs, the services provide any number of k/v pairs, and the
> scheduler performs a match (some required, some optional, ...). I see
> the URI/zone as one of those tags, not something we need to overload
> to contain all of the capabilities. It should only be a hierarchical
> "location", which may be geographic location, organizational location
> (dept, ...), or some other type (however you decide to construct
> your zones).
> For example, imagine a dynamic del.icio.us tag that allowed for domain
> name filtering on bookmarks (give me all bookmarks with tags [book
> review] [domain:slashdot.org]). For Nova, this means issuing requests
> like "create instance with [GPU] [Fast disk] [zone:dc1.example.com]".
> The important thing is that this is not a tag specific to a particular
> service. For example, Swift would never care or need to understand a
> 'GPU' tag, but it can share and understand zone tags.
> -Eric
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 12:40:44PM +0000, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>> Heh, hate to be the one to bust up the URI love-fest :)
>> The issue I have with a single URI being used as the heuristic for node
selection is that it is very rigid.
>> Different business units have different views on the network:
>> * Operations may view it as geography/data centers.
>> * Consumers may view it as technical ability (gpu's, fast disk, good
inter-server speed, etc)
>> * Sales/marketing may view it as the number of martinis they can buy ;)
>> Trees become unmanageable/hard to visualize for users beyond a couple
hundred nodes. We are lucky that our geographical/DC-based hierarchy is
relatively flat. This is why I was initially pushing for a tag-based system
for selection (aka Zone/Host Capabilities).
>> Consider the way delicio.us works. They manage many millions of URL's and
tags are an effective way to slice & dice your way through the data:
>> "Show me all the URL's on [OpenStack] [Python] [Zones] [Scheduler]" ...
>> This is also the way the old Trader services worked:
>> "I want a [wax transfer] [color] printer that can has [30ppm] and
[300dpi] on [Floor 2]"
>> "Near" simply has to mean the distance in zones from the most-optimal
zones, based on the tags.
>> "I want a new instance with [GPU] and [Fast Disk] [Good inter-instance
network speed] [near] [DRW] [DC1]"
>> * where "[near]" implies "as close as possible to" in zone distance.
>> Personally I don't like overloading the zone name to have a "meaningful"
URI when we can get the same functionality with Capabilities/Tags already.
And we already know we need Capability support anyway. Especially if it
means enforcing a rigid hierarchy.
>> $0.02
>> -S
>> ________________________________________
>> From: openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=
rackspace.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Eric Day [eday@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 4:30 AM
>> To: Justin Santa Barbara
>> Cc: openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Devin Carlen
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] Allowing clients to pass capability requests
through tags?
>> The main reason I was proposing full location/zone of objects is to
>> allow this type of 'near' scheduling to happen without understanding
>> what the actual object is. For example, imagine we want to start an
>> instance near a particular swift object. We could query the swift
>> object and in the metadata there could be a 'zone' tag (well, three,
>> one for each copy). For example:
>> get swift-12345: zone=rack12.room2.dc1.dfw.rackspace.com
>> I can now use that zone name to:
>> create_instance: openstack:near=rack12.room2.dc1.dfw.rackspace.com
>> The deployment can decide what 'near' is (perhaps a measure of link
>> speed or latency). This way a particular deployment that uses the
>> same URI/zone names across projects can account for locality without
>> knowing what objects from different services are. If it were just
>> 'near=swift-12345', it would need to understand what a swift object
>> was and perform that lookup to find out where it is.
>> So you can still grab a zone tag from a volume you created:
>> get vol-000001: rack4.room2.dc1.dfw.rackspace.com
>> and use the zone to launch an instance with:
>> create_instance: openstack:near=rack4.room2.dc1.dfw.rackspace.com
>> We can also write schedulers/tools for a particular deployment
>> that understands the zones to just say 'always prefer in
>> dc1.dfw.rackspace.com', because power is cheaper there right now, or
>> 'test.dc1.dfw.rackspace.com' because that is my test zone (perhaps
>> only enabled for certain accounts in the scheduler too).
>> -Eric
>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:38:42PM -0800, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
>> > I think the blueprint was largely complementary to the multi-zone
>> > this is more about how the client _requests_ a particular
>> > location/capability through the API. The multi-zone blueprint seems to
>> > more about how nova would satisfy those requests (in a non-trivial zone
>> > structure.)
>> > The root motivator is indeed getting a 'good' connection to a storage
>> > volume. I'm thinking of iSCSI SAN storage here, so in my case this
>> > probably means the SAN device with the least number of switches in
>> > between. There could well be SAN devices in each rack (e.g. Solaris
>> > volume nodes), or the devices could even be running on the host nodes,
>> > I don't believe that zones in the EC2 sense are sufficient here.
>> > But I guess that if the zone hierarchy went all the way down to the
>> > (or machine), that would work. So I could create a volume and it would
>> > come back with a location of "rack4.room2.dc1.dfw.rackspace.com" and I
>> > could then request allocation of machines in that same rack? Is that
>> > vision of the nested zones?
>> > I do have a concern that long-term if we _only_ use zones, that's
>> > to multiplex a lot of information into the zone hierarchy, and we can
>> > really only put one attribute in there. I also like the flexibility of
>> > the 'openstack:near=vol-000001' request, because then the cloud can
>> > how near to place the instance based on its knowledge of the topology,
>> > the clients can be oblivious to the storage system and arrangement.
>> > my immediate requirement would indeed be satisfied if the zones went
>> > to the rack/machine level.
>> > An alternative way to look at zones and instance-types is that they're
>> > actually just fail-if-not-satisfiable tags of the creation request
>> > (openstack:+zone=us-east-1a and openstack:+instancetype=m1.large)
>> > only distinguished attributes because AWS doesn't have an
>> > extensibility mechanism, which this blueprint would give us.
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Devin Carlen <devcamcar@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > I haven't totally digested this blueprint yet but it seems like there
>> > some overlap with what is being discussed with the multi zone metadata
>> > stuff. One approach might be to handle this awt the scheduler level
>> > though and try to ensure things are always in the same zone when
>> > appropriate.
>> > I think the bigger question you raise is how to request local volumes
>> > when possible, yes?
>> >
>> > Devin
>> > On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:37 PM, Justin Santa Barbara <justin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Does anyone have any thoughts/objections on the blueprint I posted for
>> > allowing clients to pass capability-requests through tags? I'm
>> > planning on starting implementation soon, so if people think this is a
>> > bad idea I'd rather know before I start coding!
>> > Blueprint:
>> > Wiki:
>> > And a quick TLDR:
>> > API clients need a way to request e.g. placement of machines near each
>> > other / near volumes, or that a volume be created with a particular
>> > RAID level, or that a machine be created in a HIPAA compliant
>> > environment. (This is complementary to the work on hierarchical zones
>> > & URL naming, I believe)
>> > I propose using the instance tags for this, e.g. specifying
>> > openstack:near=vol-000001 when creating an instance to request
>> > locating the instance 'close to' that volume.
>> > By default these requests would be best-effort and ignored-if-unknown;
>> > if the client wants to specify that something is required and should
>> > fail if not understood or not satisfiable, they could use a "+" e.g.
>> > openstack:+location=*.dc1.north.rackspace.com
>> > Controversially (?), this would not be supported for clients using the
>> > AWS API, because tags can only be specified once the instance has
>> > already been created.
>> > Feedback appreciated!
>> > Justin
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> > Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> > Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
>> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of
>> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless
>> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of
>> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is
>> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail
>> at abuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, and delete the original message.
>> Your cooperation is appreciated.
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Follow ups