[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7845?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Rajani Karuturi updated CLOUDSTACK-7845:
----------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: (was: 4.5.0)
4.5.1
> Strict Implicit Dedication should allow for deploying owned Virtual Routers
> on dedicated host
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CLOUDSTACK-7845
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7845
> Project: CloudStack
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the
> default.)
> Components: SystemVM, Virtual Router
> Affects Versions: 4.4.0
> Environment: CloudStack 4.4.0 w/ KVM Hypervisor on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS
> Reporter: Logan B
> Fix For: 4.5.1
>
>
> Currently the best method of isolation for domains or accounts is Strict
> Implicit Dedication. The reasoning is as follows:
> Goal: Dedicated a resource (host, cluster, or pod) to an account or domain.
> Problems:
> - Explicit Dedication: Account or domain's VMs are all deployed on it's
> dedicated resources. However, System VMs (Virtual Routers) belonging to
> OTHER accounts can also be deployed on those same resources (host, cluster,
> or pod). This is not desirable.
> - Preferred Implicit Dedication: Account or domain's VMs are deployed on it's
> dedicated resources. However, if those resources are near full utilization
> there is a chance that the account or domain's VMs will be deployed on
> resources that are not dedicated. This is less likely, but also undesirable.
> We are currently using both explicit and implicit dedication. The explicit
> dedication ensures that the first VM deployed is provisioned on the dedicated
> resources, while the implicit dedication ensures that other accounts can't
> deploy resources on the same dedicated resources (intentionally or not).
> Proposed changes:
> Currently Virtual Router's are considered to be owned by the "system"
> account, even though they are each tied to a specific user account. This
> probably doesn't need to change, but it makes a solution to the above issue
> easier since Virtual Router's are already tagged/associated with user
> accounts.
> I would suggest changing the Strict Implicit Dedication planner, and the
> Virtual Router deployment planner as follows:
> - Strict Implicit Dedication: When selecting a host for strict implicit
> dedication Virtual Router's belonging to the account that "owns" the resource
> should be ignored. Virtual Router's or other System VMs belonging to OTHER
> accounts should still be considered, and cause the deployment to fail.
> - Virtual Router deployment: Virtual Router's belonging to an account should
> prefer deployment on explicitly or implicitly dedicated resources belonging
> to that same account. In addition, deployment should not fail if the Strict
> Implicitly dedicated resource owner and the Virtual Router "owner" match.
> The end goal here is to provide absolute isolation for accounts or domains
> with dedicated resources. If someone pays for a 'private cloud' with
> dedicated hardware then all of their deployed services should end up on that
> hardware, and no other account/domain should be able to utilize the dedicated
> resources of another. This ensures that an outage or issue on a public
> resource doesn't affect the dedicated/private infrastructure, and "public"
> users can't consume private resources being paid for by someone else.
> Currently the only way this is possible is by dedicating an entire zone to an
> account, but that is far from ideal, and makes management of the overall
> deployment/networking/etc. much more of a hassle.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
