Is there any plan on supporting KVM in the patch cycle post 4.2? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Tutkowski" <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 10:12:32 AM Subject: Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER
I agree on merging Wei's feature first, then mine. If his feature is for KVM only, then it is a non issue as I don't support KVM in 4.2. On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > John, > > For the billing, as no one works on billing now, users need to calculate > the billing by themselves. They can get the service_offering and > disk_offering of a VMs and volumes for calculation. Of course it is better > to tell user the exact limitation value of individual volume, and network > rate limitation for nics as well. I can work on it later. Do you think it > is a part of I/O throttling? > > Sorry my misunstand the second the question. > > Agree with what you said about the two features. > > -Wei > > > 2013/6/3 John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > > > Wei, > > > > > > On Jun 3, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi John, Mike > > > > > > I hope Mike's aswer helps you. I am trying to adding more. > > > > > > (1) I think billing should depend on IO statistics rather than IOPS > > > limitation. Please review disk_io_stat if you have time. disk_io_stat > > can > > > get the IO statistics including bytes/iops read/write for an individual > > > virtual machine. > > > > Going by the AWS model, customers are billed more for volumes with > > provisioned IOPS, as well as, for those operations ( > > http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/). I would imagine our users would like the > > option to employ similar cost models. Could an operator implement such a > > billing model in the current patch? > > > > > > > > (2) Do you mean IOPS runtime change? KVM supports setting IOPS/BPS > > > limitation for a running virtual machine through command line. However, > > > CloudStack does not support changing the parameters of a created > offering > > > (computer offering or disk offering). > > > > I meant at the Java interface level. I apologize for being unclear. Can > > we more generalize allocation algorithms with a set of interfaces that > > describe the service guarantees provided by a resource? > > > > > > > > (3) It is a good question. Maybe it is better to commit Mike's patch > > after > > > disk_io_throttling as Mike needs to consider the limitation in > hypervisor > > > type, I think. > > > > I will expand on my thoughts in a later response to Mike regarding the > > touch points between these two features. I think that disk_io_throttling > > will need to be merged before SolidFire, but I think we need closer > > coordination between the branches (possibly have have solidfire track > > disk_io_throttling) to coordinate on this issue. > > > > > > > > - Wei > > > > > > > > > 2013/6/3 John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > > > > > >> Mike, > > >> > > >> The things I want to understand are the following: > > >> > > >> 1) Is there value in capturing IOPS policies be captured in a common > > >> data model (e.g. for billing/usage purposes, expressing offerings). > > >> 2) Should there be a common interface model for reasoning about IOP > > >> provisioning at runtime? > > >> 3) How are conflicting provisioned IOPS configurations between a > > >> hypervisor and storage device reconciled? In particular, a scenario > > where > > >> is lead to believe (and billed) for more IOPS configured for a VM > than a > > >> storage device has been configured to deliver. Another scenario > could a > > >> consistent configuration between a VM and a storage device at creation > > >> time, but a later modification to storage device introduces logical > > >> inconsistency. > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> -John > > >> > > >> On Jun 2, 2013, at 8:38 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi John, > > >> > > >> I believe Wei's feature deals with controlling the max number of IOPS > > from > > >> the hypervisor side. > > >> > > >> My feature is focused on controlling IOPS from the storage system > side. > > >> > > >> I hope that helps. :) > > >> > > >> > > >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 6:35 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > > wrote: > > >> > > >>> Wei, > > >>> > > >>> My opinion is that no features should be merged until all functional > > >>> issues have been resolved and it is ready to turn over to test. > Until > > >> the > > >>> total Ops vs discrete read/write ops issue is addressed and > re-reviewed > > >> by > > >>> Wido, I don't think this criteria has been satisfied. > > >>> > > >>> Also, how does this work intersect/compliment the SolidFire patch ( > > >>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/11479/)? As I understand it that work > is > > >>> also involves provisioned IOPS. I would like to ensure we don't > have a > > >>> scenario where provisioned IOPS in KVM and SolidFire are > unnecessarily > > >>> incompatible. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> -John > > >>> > > >>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 6:47 AM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> Wido, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Sure. I will change it next week. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -Wei > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2013/6/1 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi Wei, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 06/01/2013 08:24 AM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wido, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Exactly. I have pushed the features into master. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> If anyone object thems for technical reason till Monday, I will > revert > > >>> > > >>> them. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> For the sake of clarity I just want to mention again that we should > > >> change > > >>> > > >>> the total IOps to R/W IOps asap so that we never release a version > with > > >>> > > >>> only total IOps. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> You laid the groundwork for the I/O throttling and that's great! We > > >> should > > >>> > > >>> however prevent that we create legacy from day #1. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wido > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -Wei > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 05/31/2013 03:59 PM, John Burwell wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wido, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> +1 -- this enhancement must to discretely support read and write > IOPS. > > >>> > > >>> I > > >>> > > >>> don't see how it could be fixed later because I don't see how we > > >>> > > >>> correctly > > >>> > > >>> split total IOPS into read and write. Therefore, we would be stuck > > >>> > > >>> with a > > >>> > > >>> total unless/until we decided to break backwards compatibility. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> What Wei meant was merging it into master now so that it will go in > the > > >>> > > >>> 4.2 branch and add Read / Write IOps before the 4.2 release so that > 4.2 > > >>> > > >>> will be released with Read and Write instead of Total IOps. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> This is to make the May 31st feature freeze date. But if the window > > moves > > >>> > > >>> (see other threads) then it won't be necessary to do that. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wido > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I also completely agree that there is no association between network > > >>> > > >>> and > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> disk I/O. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thanks, > > >>> > > >>> -John > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On May 31, 2013, at 9:51 AM, Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > > wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi Wei, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 05/31/2013 03:13 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi Wido, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Thanks. Good question. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I thought about at the beginning. Finally I decided to ignore the > > >>> > > >>> difference of read and write mainly because the network throttling > did > > >>> > > >>> not > > >>> > > >>> care the difference of sent and received bytes as well. > > >>> > > >>> That reasoning seems odd. Networking and disk I/O completely > different. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Disk I/O is much more expensive in most situations then network > > >>> > > >>> bandwith. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Implementing it will be some copy-paste work. It could be > > >>> > > >>> implemented in > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> few days. For the deadline of feature freeze, I will implement it > > >>> > > >>> after > > >>> > > >>> that , if needed. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> It think it's a feature we can't miss. But if it goes into the 4.2 > > >>> > > >>> window we have to make sure we don't release with only total IOps and > > >>> > > >>> fix > > >>> > > >>> it in 4.3, that will confuse users. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wido > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> -Wei > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> 2013/5/31 Wido den Hollander <w...@widodh.nl> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi Wei, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 05/30/2013 06:03 PM, Wei ZHOU wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> I would like to merge disk_io_throttling branch into master. > > >>> > > >>> If nobody object, I will merge into master in 48 hours. > > >>> > > >>> The purpose is : > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Virtual machines are running on the same storage device (local > > >>> > > >>> storage or > > >>> > > >>> share strage). Because of the rate limitation of device (such as > > >>> > > >>> iops), if > > >>> > > >>> one VM has large disk operation, it may affect the disk performance > > >>> > > >>> of > > >>> > > >>> other VMs running on the same storage device. > > >>> > > >>> It is neccesary to set the maximum rate and limit the disk I/O of > > >>> > > >>> VMs. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Looking at the code I see you make no difference between Read and > > >>> > > >>> Write > > >>> > > >>> IOps. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Qemu and libvirt support setting both a different rate for Read and > > >>> > > >>> Write > > >>> > > >>> IOps which could benefit a lot of users. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> It's also strange, in the polling side you collect both the Read and > > >>> > > >>> Write > > >>> > > >>> IOps, but on the throttling side you only go for a global value. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Write IOps are usually much more expensive then Read IOps, so it > > >>> > > >>> seems > > >>> > > >>> like a valid use-case where that an admin would set a lower value for > > >>> > > >>> write > > >>> > > >>> IOps vs Read IOps. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Since this only supports KVM at this point I think it would be of > > >>> > > >>> great > > >>> > > >>> value to at least have the mechanism in place to support both, > > >>> > > >>> implementing > > >>> > > >>> this later would be a lot of work. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> If a hypervisor doesn't support setting different values for read and > > >>> > > >>> write you can always sum both up and set that as the total limit. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Can you explain why you implemented it this way? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Wido > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> The feature includes: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> (1) set the maximum rate of VMs (in disk_offering, and global > > >>> > > >>> configuration) > > >>> > > >>> (2) change the maximum rate of VMs > > >>> > > >>> (3) limit the disk rate (total bps and iops) > > >>> > > >>> JIRA ticket: https://issues.apache.org/**** > > >>> > > >>> jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192<ht**tps://issues.apache.org/**** > > >>> > > >>> jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192< > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192> > > >>> > > >>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192< > > >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192> > > >>> > > >>> <** > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192< > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1192> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> FS (I will update later) : > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/******confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/******< > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/****> > > >>> > > >>> < > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/**< > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/**> > > >>> > > >>> VM+Disk+IO+Throttling<https://****cwiki.apache.org/confluence/****< > > >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**> > > >>> > > >>> display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+****Throttling<https://cwiki.** > > >>> > > >>> apache.org/confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+**Throttling< > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Merge check list :- > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> * Did you check the branch's RAT execution success? > > >>> > > >>> Yes > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> * Are there new dependencies introduced? > > >>> > > >>> No > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> * What automated testing (unit and integration) is included in the > > >>> > > >>> new > > >>> > > >>> feature? > > >>> > > >>> Unit tests are added. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> * What testing has been done to check for potential regressions? > > >>> > > >>> (1) set the bytes rate and IOPS rate on CloudStack UI. > > >>> > > >>> (2) VM operations, including > > >>> > > >>> deploy, stop, start, reboot, destroy, expunge. migrate, restore > > >>> > > >>> (3) Volume operations, including > > >>> > > >>> Attach, Detach > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> To review the code, you can try > > >>> > > >>> git diff c30057635d04a2396f84c588127d7e******be42e503a7 > > >>> > > >>> f2e5591b710d04cc86815044f5823e******73a4a58944 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Best regards, > > >>> > > >>> Wei > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [1] > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/******confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/******< > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/****> > > >>> > > >>> < > > >>> https://cwiki.apache.org/****confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/**< > > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/**> > > >>> > > >>> VM+Disk+IO+Throttling<https://****cwiki.apache.org/confluence/****< > > >>> http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/**> > > >>> > > >>> display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+****Throttling<https://cwiki.** > > >>> > > >>> apache.org/confluence/display/**CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+**Throttling< > > >>> > > >> > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VM+Disk+IO+Throttling > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [2] refs/heads/disk_io_throttling > > >>> > > >>> [3] > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/******jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< > > >> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> > > >>> > > >>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> > > >>> > > >>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< > > >>> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> > > >>> > > >>> <** > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301< > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-1301> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> <ht**tps://issues.apache.org/****jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< > > >>> http://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> > > >>> > > >>> **< > > >>> http://issues.apache.org/**jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< > > >> http://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> > > >>> > > >>> <** > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/****jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< > > >> https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> > > >>> > > >>> <h**ttps://issues.apache.org/jira/**browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071< > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-2071> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> (**CLOUDSTACK-1301 > > >>> > > >>> - VM Disk I/O Throttling) > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> *Mike Tutkowski* > > >> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > >> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > >> o: 303.746.7302 > > >> Advancing the way the world uses the > > >> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > > >> *™* > > >> > > > > > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> *™*
