Thanks all for reply. I have spoke with Qiming and @Shardy (IRC nickname) and they confirmed this is not possible as of today. Someone else - sorry i forgot his nicname on IRC suggested to write a Ceilometer query to count the number of instances but what @ZhiQiang said is true and this is what we have seen via the instance sample
*@Clint - *that is the case indeed *@ZhiQiang* - what do you mean by "*count of resource should be queried from specific service's API*"? Is it related to Ceilometer's event types configuration? *@Mike - *my use case is very simple: i have a group of instances and in case the # of instances reach the minimum number i set, i would like a new instance to be spun up - think like a cluster where i want to maintain a minimum number of members With regards to the proposal you made - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127884/ that works but only in a specific use case hence is not generic because the assumption is that my instances are hooked behind a LBaaS which is not always the case. Looking forward to see the 'convergence' in action. Cheers, Dani On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 3:06 AM, Mike Spreitzer <mspre...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Daniel Comnea <comnea.d...@gmail.com> wrote on 10/27/2014 07:16:32 AM: > > > Yes i did but if you look at this example > > > > > https://github.com/openstack/heat-templates/blob/master/hot/autoscaling.yaml > > > > > the flow is simple: > > > CPU alarm in Ceilometer triggers the "type: OS::Heat::ScalingPolicy" > > which then triggers the "type: OS::Heat::AutoScalingGroup" > > Actually the ScalingPolicy does not "trigger" the ASG. BTW, > "ScalingPolicy" is mis-named; it is not a full policy, it is only an action > (the condition part is missing --- as you noted, that is in the Ceilometer > alarm). The so-called ScalingPolicy does the action itself when > triggered. But it respects your configured min and max size. > > What are you concerned about making your scaling group smaller than your > configured minimum? Just checking here that there is not a > misunderstanding. > > As Clint noted, there is a large-scale effort underway to make Heat > maintain what it creates despite deletion of the underlying resources. > > There is also a small-scale effort underway to make ASGs recover from > members stopping proper functioning for whatever reason. See > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/127884/ for a proposed interface and > initial implementation. > > Regards, > Mike > _______________________________________________ > 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