Hi Debo, > I was wondering if we are shooting for too much to discuss by clubbing. > i) Group Scheduling / Smart Placement / Heat and Scheduling (1), (2), (3), & > (7) > - How do you schedule something more complex that a single VM ?
I agree it's a lot to get through, but we're working to a budget of only 3 slots for scheduler sessions. If we split this across two slots as originally suggested by Gary, then we don't get to discuss one of "generalized metrics/ceilometer" or "performance" at all - which would seem an even worse compromise to me. We never going to be able to avoid session which have more content than can comfortably fit into a single slot - that's kind of just a way of life from the time constraints of the summit - what we're trying to do is make sure that we can plan those sessions ahead of time rather that the morning before at the Hotel ;-) I did add a rider that if Russell can give a 4th session to scheduling then this is the one that would most benefit from being split. Phil -----Original Message----- From: Debojyoti Dutta [mailto:ddu...@gmail.com] Sent: 15 October 2013 04:31 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Scheduler meeting and Icehouse Summit Hi Phil Good summary ... I was wondering if we are shooting for too much to discuss by clubbing i) Group Scheduling / Smart Placement / Heat and Scheduling (1), (2), (3), & (7) - How do you schedule something more complex that a single VM ? I think specifying something more complex than a single VM is a great theme. But dont know if we can do justice in 1 session. I think maybe a simple nova scheduling API with groups/bundles of resources itself would be a lot for 1 session. In fact in order to specify what you want in your resources bundle, you would need to think about policies. So maybe just the simple Nova API and policies might be useful. Also we might have a session correlating the different models of how more than 1 VM can be requested - you could start from nova and then generalize to cross services or you could start from heat workload models and drill down. There are passionate people on both sides and maybe that debate needs a session. I think the smart resource placement is very interesting and might need at least 1/2 a slot since one can show how it can be done today in nova and how it can handle cross services scenarios. See you tomorrow on IRC debo On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:56 AM, Alex Glikson <glik...@il.ibm.com> wrote: > IMO, the three themes make sense, but I would suggest waiting until > the submission deadline and discuss at the following IRC meeting on the 22nd. > Maybe there will be more relevant proposals to consider. > > Regards, > Alex > > P.S. I plan to submit a proposal regarding scheduling policies, and > maybe one more related to theme #1 below > > > > From: "Day, Phil" <philip....@hp.com> > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>, > Date: 14/10/2013 06:50 PM > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Scheduler meeting and Icehouse Summit > ________________________________ > > > > Hi Folks, > > In the weekly scheduler meeting we've been trying to pull together a > consolidated list of Summit sessions so that we can find logical > groupings and make a more structured set of sessions for the limited > time available at the summit. > > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/IceHouse-Nova-Scheduler-Sessions > > With the deadline for sessions being this Thursday 17th, tomorrows IRC > meeting is the last chance to decide which sessions we want to combine / > prioritize. Russell has indicated that a starting assumption of three > scheduler sessions is reasonable, with any extras depending on what > else is submitted. > > I've matched the list on the Either pad to submitted sessions below, > and added links to any other proposed sessions that look like they are > related. > > > 1) Instance Group Model and API > Session Proposal: > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/190 > > 2) Smart Resource Placement: > Session Proposal: > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/33 > Possibly related sessions: Resource > optimization service for nova > (http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/201) > > 3) Heat and Scheduling and Software, Oh My!: > Session Proposal: > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/113 > > 4) Generic Scheduler Metrics and Celiometer: > Session Proposal: > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/218 > Possibly related sessions: Making Ceilometer and Nova > play nice http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/73 > > 5) Image Properties and Host Capabilities > Session Proposal: NONE > > 6) Scheduler Performance: > Session Proposal: NONE > Possibly related Sessions: Rethinking Scheduler Design > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/34 > > 7) Scheduling Across Services: > Session Proposal: NONE > > 8) Private Clouds: > Session Proposal: > http://summit.openstack.org/cfp/details/228 > > 9) Multiple Scheduler Policies: > Session Proposal: NONE > > > The proposal from last weeks meeting was to use the three slots for: > - Instance Group Model and API (1) > - Smart Resource Placement (2) > - Performance (6) > > However, at the moment there doesn't seem to be a session proposed to > cover the performance work ? > > It also seems to me that the Group Model and Smart Placement are > pretty closely linked along with (3) (which says it wants to combine 1 > & 2 into the same topic) , so if we only have three slots available then > these look like > logical candidates for consolidating into a single session. That would > free up a session to cover the generic metrics (4) and Ceilometer - > where a lot of work in Havana stalled because we couldn't get a > consensus on the way forward. The third slot would be kept for > performance - which based on the lively debate in the scheduler meetings I'm > assuming will still be submitted > as a session. Private Clouds isn't really a scheduler topic, so I suggest > it takes its chances as a general session. Hence my revised proposal > for the three slots is: > > i) Group Scheduling / Smart Placement / Heat and Scheduling (1), > (2), (3), & (7) > - How do you schedule something more complex that a > single VM ? > > ii) Generalized scheduling metrics / celiometer integration (4) > - How do we extend the set of resources a scheduler > can use to make its decisions ? > - How do we make this work with / compatible with > Celiometer ? > > iii) Scheduler Performance (6) > > In that way we will at least give airtime to all of the topics. If a 4th > scheduler slot becomes available then we could break up the first > session into two parts. > > Thoughts welcome here or in tomorrows IRC meeting. > > Cheers, > Phil > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- -Debo~ _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
