openstack team mailing list archive

[Michael J Fork <mjfork@xxxxxxxxxx>]

David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx> wrote on 08/27/2012 06:05:50 PM:

> From: David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx>
> To: Michael J Fork/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS,
> Cc: "openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)"
> <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, openstack-bounces+mjfork=us ibm com
> <openstack-bounces+mjfork=us.ibm.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, OpenStack
> Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: 08/27/2012 06:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [openstack-dev] Discussion about where to
> put database for bare-metal provisioning (review 10726)
>
>
>  Michael,
>
>  It is a little confusing without knowing the assumptions of your
suggestions.

Yes, sorry, never made it explicitly clear that I was building off of
Vish's work.

> First of all, I want to make sure that you agree on the followings:
> 1. one entry for a bare-metal machines in the 'compute_node' table.
> 2. one entry for bare-metal nova-compute that manages N bare-metal
> machines in the 'service' table.

Correct.

> In addition to that I think you suggest augmenting 'host' field in
> the 'service' table,
> such that 'host' field can be used for RPC.
> (I don't think the current 'host' field can be used for that purpose
now.)

Yes, this was an assumption I had made.  Vish (or someone else) would need
to weigh in if service.host can be used as target for RPC, but my digging
did not reveal any reason it couldn't.....


>  David
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx> wrote on 08/27/2012 05:22:37 PM:
> >
> > > From: David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx>
> > > To: Michael J Fork/Rochester/IBM@IBMUS,
> > > Cc: "openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)"
> > > <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, openstack-bounces+mjfork=us ibm com
> > > <openstack-bounces+mjfork=us.ibm.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, OpenStack
> > > Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Date: 08/27/2012 05:22 PM
> > > Subject: Re: [Openstack] [openstack-dev] Discussion about where to
> > > put database for bare-metal provisioning (review 10726)
> > >
> > >
> > > Michael,
> > >
> > > I think you mean "compute_node hostname" as 'hypervisor_hostname'
> > > field in the 'compute_node' table.
> >
> > Yes. This value would be part of the payload of the message cast to
> > the proxy node so that it knows who the request was directed to.
> >
> > > What do you mean by "service hostname"?
> > > I don't see such field in the 'service' table in the database.
> > > Is it in some other table?
> > > Or do you suggest adding 'service_hostname' field in the 'service'
> > > table?
> >
> > The "host" field in the services table. This value would be used as
> > the target of the rpc cast so that the proxy node would receive the
> > message.
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > openstack-bounces+mjfork=us.ibm.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on
> > > > 08/27/2012 02:58:56 PM:
> > > >
> > > > > From: David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > To: Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvananda@xxxxxxxxx>,
> > > > > Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-
> > > > > dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx \
> > > > > (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\)"
> > > > > <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Date: 08/27/2012 03:06 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Openstack] [openstack-dev] Discussion about where
> > > > > to
> > > > > put database for bare-metal provisioning (review 10726)
> > > > > Sent by: openstack-bounces+mjfork=us.ibm.com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Vish,
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I understand your idea.
> > > > > One service entry with multiple bare-metal compute_node entries
> > > > > are
> > > > > registered at the start of bare-metal nova-compute.
> > > > > 'hypervisor_hostname' must be different for each bare-metal
> > > > > machine,
> > > > > such as 'bare-metal-0001.xxx.com', 'bare-metal-0002.xxx.com',
> > > > > etc.)
> > > > > But their IP addresses must be the IP address of bare-metal
> > > > > nova-
> > > > > compute, such that an instance is casted
> > > > > not to bare-metal machine directly but to bare-metal
> > > > > nova-compute.
> > > >
> > > > I believe the change here is to cast out the message to the
> > > > <topic>.<service-hostname>. Existing code sends it to the
> > > > compute_node
> > > > hostname (see line 202 of nova/scheduler/filter_scheduler.py,
> > > > specifically host=weighted_host.host_state.host). Changing that to
> > > > cast to the service hostname would send the message to the
> > > > bare-metal
> > > > proxy node and should not have an effect on current deployments
> > > > since
> > > > the service hostname and the host_state.host would always be
> > > > equal.
> > > > This model will also let you keep the bare-metal compute node IP
> > > > in
> > > > the compute node table.
> > > >
> > > > > One extension we need to do at the scheduler side is using
> > > > > (host,
> > > > > hypervisor_hostname) instead of (host) only in host_manager.py.
> > > > > 'HostManager.service_state' is { <host> : { <service > : { cap k
> > > > > : v
> > > > > }}}.
> > > > > It needs to be changed to { <host> : { <service> : {
> > > > > <hypervisor_name> : { cap k : v }}}}.
> > > > > Most functions of HostState need to be changed to use (host,
> > > > > hypervisor_name) pair to identify a compute node.
> > > >
> > > > Would an alternative here be to change the top level "host" to be
> > > > the
> > > > hypervisor_hostname and enforce uniqueness?
> > > >
> > > > > Are we on the same page, now?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > David
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > Hi David,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just checked out the code more extensively and I don't see
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > need to create a new service entry for each compute_node
> > > > > > entry.
> > > > > > The
> > > > > > code in host_manager to get all host states explicitly gets
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > compute_node entries. I don't see any reason why multiple
> > > > > > compute_node
> > > > > > entries can't share the same service. I don't see any place in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > scheduler that is grabbing records by "service" instead of by
> > > > > > "compute
> > > > > > node", but if there is one that I missed, it should be fairly
> > > > > > easy
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > change it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The compute_node record is created in the
> > > > > > compute/resource_tracker.py
> > > > > > as of a recent commit, so I think the path forward would be to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > sure that one of the records is created for each bare metal
> > > > > > node
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > the bare metal compute, perhaps by having multiple
> > > > > > resource_trackers.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Vish
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Aug 27, 2012, at 9:40 AM, David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vish,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think I don't understand your statement fully.
> > > > > > > Unless we use different hostnames, (hostname,
> > > > > > > hypervisor_hostname)
> > > > > > > must be the
> > > > > > > same for all bare-metal nodes under a bare-metal
> > > > > > > nova-compute.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Could you elaborate the following statement a little bit
> > > > > > > more?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> You would just have to use a little more than hostname.
> > > > > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > >> (hostname, hypervisor_hostname) could be used to update the
> > > > > > >> entry?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > David
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >> I would investigate changing the capabilities to key off of
> > > > > > >> something
> > > > > > >> other than hostname. It looks from the table structure like
> > > > > > >> compute_nodes could be have a many-to-one relationship with
> > > > > > >> services.
> > > > > > >> You would just have to use a little more than hostname.
> > > > > > >> Perhaps
> > > > > > >> (hostname, hypervisor_hostname) could be used to update the
> > > > > > >> entry?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Vish
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> On Aug 24, 2012, at 11:23 AM, David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Vish,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I've tested your code and did more testing.
> > > > > > >>> There are a couple of problems.
> > > > > > >>> 1. host name should be unique. If not, any repetitive
> > > > > > >>> updates
> > > > > > >>> of
> > > > > > >>> new
> > > > > > >>> capabilities with the same host name are simply
> > > > > > >>> overwritten.
> > > > > > >>> 2. We cannot generate arbitrary host names on the fly.
> > > > > > >>> The scheduler (I tested filter scheduler) gets host names
> > > > > > >>> from
> > > > > > >>> db.
> > > > > > >>> So, if a host name is not in the 'services' table, it is
> > > > > > >>> not
> > > > > > >>> considered by the scheduler at all.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> So, to make your suggestions possible, nova-compute should
> > > > > > >>> register
> > > > > > >>> N different host names in 'services' table,
> > > > > > >>> and N corresponding entries in 'compute_nodes' table.
> > > > > > >>> Here is an example:
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> mysql> select id, host, binary, topic, report_count,
> > > > > > >>> disabled,
> > > > > > >>> availability_zone from services;
> > > > > > >>> +----+-------------+----------------+-----------
> > > > > +--------------+----------+-------------------+
> > > > > > >>> | id | host | binary | topic | report_count | disabled |
> > > > > > >>> | availability_zone |
> > > > > > >>> +----+-------------+----------------+-----------
> > > > > +--------------+----------+-------------------+
> > > > > > >>> | 1 | bespin101 | nova-scheduler | scheduler | 17145 | 0 |
> > > > > > >>> | nova |
> > > > > > >>> | 2 | bespin101 | nova-network | network | 16819 | 0 |
> > > > > > >>> | nova |
> > > > > > >>> | 3 | bespin101-0 | nova-compute | compute | 16405 | 0 |
> > > > > > >>> | nova
> > > > > > >>> | |
> > > > > > >>> | 4 | bespin101-1 | nova-compute | compute | 1 | 0 | nova
> > > > > > >>> | |
> > > > > > >>> +----+-------------+----------------+-----------
> > > > > +--------------+----------+-------------------+
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> mysql> select id, service_id, hypervisor_hostname from
> > > > > > >>> compute_nodes;
> > > > > > >>> +----+------------+------------------------+
> > > > > > >>> | id | service_id | hypervisor_hostname |
> > > > > > >>> +----+------------+------------------------+
> > > > > > >>> | 1 | 3 | bespin101.east.isi.edu |
> > > > > > >>> | 2 | 4 | bespin101.east.isi.edu |
> > > > > > >>> +----+------------+------------------------+
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Then, nova db (compute_nodes table) has entries of all
> > > > > > >>> bare-metal
> > > > > > >>> nodes.
> > > > > > >>> What do you think of this approach.
> > > > > > >>> Do you have any better approach?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>> David
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >>>> To elaborate, something the below. I'm not absolutely
> > > > > > >>>> sure
> > > > > > >>>> you
> > > > > > >>>> need
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>> be able to set service_name and host, but this gives you
> > > > > > >>>> the
> > > > > > >>>> option
> > > > > > >>>> to
> > > > > > >>>> do so if needed.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> iff --git a/nova/manager.py b/nova/manager.py
> > > > > > >>>> index c6711aa..c0f4669 100644
> > > > > > >>>> --- a/nova/manager.py
> > > > > > >>>> +++ b/nova/manager.py
> > > > > > >>>> @@ -217,6 +217,8 @@ class
> > > > > > >>>> SchedulerDependentManager(Manager):
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> def update_service_capabilities(self, capabilities):
> > > > > > >>>> """Remember these capabilities to send on next periodic
> > > > > > >>>> update."""
> > > > > > >>>> + if not isinstance(capabilities, list):
> > > > > > >>>> + capabilities = [capabilities]
> > > > > > >>>> self.last_capabilities = capabilities
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> @periodic_task
> > > > > > >>>> @@ -224,5 +226,8 @@ class
> > > > > > >>>> SchedulerDependentManager(Manager):
> > > > > > >>>> """Pass data back to the scheduler at a periodic
> > > > > > >>>> interval."""
> > > > > > >>>> if self.last_capabilities:
> > > > > > >>>> LOG.debug(_('Notifying Schedulers of capabilities ...'))
> > > > > > >>>> -
> > > > > > >>>> self.scheduler_rpcapi.update_service_capabilities(context,
> > > > > > >>>> - self.service_name, self.host, self.last_capabilities)
> > > > > > >>>> + for capability_item in self.last_capabilities:
> > > > > > >>>> + name = capability_item.get('service_name',
> > > > > > >>>> self.service_name)
> > > > > > >>>> + host = capability_item.get('host', self.host)
> > > > > > >>>> +
> > > > > > >>>> self.scheduler_rpcapi.update_service_capabilities(context,
> > > > > > >>>> + name, host, capability_item)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> On Aug 21, 2012, at 1:28 PM, David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Hi Vish,
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> We are trying to change our code according to your
> > > > > > >>>>> comment.
> > > > > > >>>>> I want to ask a question.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a) modify driver.get_host_stats to be able to return
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> stats instead of just one. Report the whole list back
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler. We could modify the receiving end to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> accept a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or just make multiple calls to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> self.update_service_capabilities(capabilities)
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Modifying driver.get_host_stats to return a list of host
> > > > > > >>>>> stats
> > > > > > >>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>> easy.
> > > > > > >>>>> Calling muliple calls to
> > > > > > >>>>> self.update_service_capabilities(capabilities) doesn't
> > > > > > >>>>> seem
> > > > > > >>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>> work,
> > > > > > >>>>> because 'capabilities' is overwritten each time.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Modifying the receiving end to accept a list seems to be
> > > > > > >>>>> easy.
> > > > > > >>>>> However, 'capabilities' is assumed to be dictionary by
> > > > > > >>>>> all
> > > > > > >>>>> other
> > > > > > >>>>> scheduler routines,
> > > > > > >>>>> it looks like that we have to change all of them to
> > > > > > >>>>> handle
> > > > > > >>>>> 'capability' as a list of dictionary.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> If my understanding is correct, it would affect many
> > > > > > >>>>> parts
> > > > > > >>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>> scheduler.
> > > > > > >>>>> Is it what you recommended?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>> David
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > >>>>>> This was an immediate goal, the bare-metal nova-compute
> > > > > > >>>>>> node
> > > > > > >>>>>> could
> > > > > > >>>>>> keep an internal database, but report capabilities
> > > > > > >>>>>> through
> > > > > > >>>>>> nova
> > > > > > >>>>>> in
> > > > > > >>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>> common way with the changes below. Then the scheduler
> > > > > > >>>>>> wouldn't
> > > > > > >>>>>> need
> > > > > > >>>>>> access to the bare metal database at all.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> On Aug 15, 2012, at 4:23 PM, David Kang <dkang@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Hi Vish,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Is this discussion for long-term goal or for this
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Folsom
> > > > > > >>>>>>> release?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> We still believe that bare-metal database is needed
> > > > > > >>>>>>> because there is not an automated way how bare-metal
> > > > > > >>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > >>>>>>> report
> > > > > > >>>>>>> their capabilities
> > > > > > >>>>>>> to their bare-metal nova-compute node.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>>>> David
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I am interested in finding a solution that enables
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> bare-metal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> virtualized requests to be serviced through the same
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> where
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the compute_nodes table has a full view of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> schedulable
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> resources.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> This
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> would seem to simplify the end-to-end flow while
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> opening
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> up
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> some
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> additional use cases (e.g. dynamic allocation of a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> from
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> bare-metal to hypervisor and back).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> One approach would be to have a proxy running a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> single
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nova-compute
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> daemon fronting the bare-metal nodes . That
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nova-compute
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> daemon
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> would
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> report up many HostState objects (1 per bare-metal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> node)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> become
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> entries in the compute_nodes table and accessible
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> through
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler HostManager object.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The HostState object would set cpu_info, vcpus,
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> member_mb
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> local_gb
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> values to be used for scheduling with the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> hypervisor_host
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> field
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> holding the bare-metal machine address (e.g. for IPMI
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> based
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> commands)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> and hypervisor_type = NONE. The bare-metal Flavors
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> created
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> with
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> an
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> extra_spec of hypervisor_type= NONE and the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> corresponding
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> compute_capabilities_filter would reduce the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> available
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> hosts
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> bare_metal nodes. The scheduler would need to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> understand
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> that
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> hypervisor_type = NONE means you need an exact fit
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (or
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> best-fit)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> vs weighting them (perhaps through the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> multi-scheduler).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> would cast out the message to the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> <topic>.<service-hostname>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> (code
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> today uses the HostState hostname), with the compute
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> driver
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> having
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> understand if it must be serviced elsewhere (but does
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> not
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> break
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> any
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> existing implementations since it is 1 to 1).
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Does this solution seem workable? Anything I missed?
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> The bare metal driver already is proxying for the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> other
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> so
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> it
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sounds like we need a couple of things to make this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> happen:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a) modify driver.get_host_stats to be able to return
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> stats instead of just one. Report the whole list back
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> scheduler. We could modify the receiving end to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> accept a
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> as
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> well
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> or just make multiple calls to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> self.update_service_capabilities(capabilities)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> b) make a few minor changes to the scheduler to make
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> filtering
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> still works. Note the changes here may be very
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> helpful:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> https://review.openstack.org/10327
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> c) we have to make sure that instances launched on
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> take
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> up
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the entire host state somehow. We could probably do
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> this
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> by
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> making
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sure that the instance_type ram, mb, gb etc. matches
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> what
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> node
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> has, but we may want a new boolean field "used" if
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> those
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> aren't
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> sufficient.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I This approach seems pretty good. We could
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> potentially
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> get
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> rid
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> of
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> shared bare_metal_node table. I guess the only other
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> concern
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> is
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> how
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> you populate the capabilities that the bare metal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> nodes
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> are
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> reporting.
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> I guess an api extension that rpcs to a baremetal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> node to
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> add
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> node. Maybe someday this could be autogenerated by
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> the
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> bare
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> metal
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> host
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> looking in its arp table for dhcp requests! :)
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Vish
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> > > openstack-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> > > openstack-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/
> listinfo/openstack-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> OpenStack-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > >>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> openstack-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > > > Post to : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > > > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Michael
> > > >
> > > > -------------------------------------------------
> > > > Michael Fork
> > > > Cloud Architect, Emerging Solutions
> > > > IBM Systems & Technology Group
> > >
> > Michael
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------
> > Michael Fork
> > Cloud Architect, Emerging Solutions
> > IBM Systems & Technology Group
>

Michael

-------------------------------------------------
Michael Fork
Cloud Architect, Emerging Solutions
IBM Systems & Technology Group