On 18 Jun 2015 at 04:44:18, gordon chung (g...@live.ca) wrote:
On 17/06/2015 12:57 PM, Chris Dent wrote: > On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Simon Pasquier wrote: > >> I'm still struggling to see how these optimizations would be implemented >> since the current Gnocchi design has separate backends for indexing and >> storage which means that datapoints (id + timestamp + value) and metric >> metadata (tenant_id, instance_id, server group, ...) are stored into >> different places. I'd be interested to hear from the Gnocchi team how >> this >> is going to be tackled. For instance, does it imply modifications or >> extensions to the existing Gnocchi API? > > I think there's three things to keep in mind: > > a) The plan is to figure it out and make it work well, "production > ready" even. That will require some iteration. At the moment the > overlap between InfluxDB python driver maturity and someone-to-do-the- > work is not great. When it is I'm sure the full variety of > optimizations will be explored, with actual working code and test > cases. just curious but what bugs are we waiting on for the influxdb driver? i'm hoping Paul Dix has prioritised them? > > b) Gnocchi has separate _interfaces_ for indexing and storage. This > is not the same as having separate _backends_[1]. If it turns out > that the right way to get InfluxDB working is for it to be the > same backend to the two separate interfaces then that will be > okay. i'll straddle the middle line here and say i think we need to wait for a viable driver before we can start making the appropriate adjustments. having said that, i think once we have the gaps resolved, i think we should make all effort to conform to the rules of the db (whether it is influxdb, kairosdb, opentsdb). we faced a similar issue with the previous data storage design where we generically applied a design for one driver across all drivers and that led to terribly inefficient design everywhere. I'd like to emphasise that using the same backend for both data-point time-series and the identification of the resources linked to those time-series is not only the right way, it is the mandatory way. The most salient reason being that we shall not mandate other applications consuming time-series produced through Gnocchi to use anything else than the time-series backend native API. Operators who want to use InfluxDB, OpenTSDB or something else, as their time-series backend, do it for a reason. The choice of an API that best suits their needs is key to that decision. It is also a question of effectiveness. There are plenty of applications out there like Grafana that plug into those time-series out-of-the-box. I don’t think we want to force those applications to use the Gnocchi API instead. - Patrick > > c) The future is unknown and the present is not made of stone. There > could be modifications and extensions to the existing stuff. We > don't know. Yet. > > [1] Yes the existing implementations use SQL for the indexer and > various subclasses of the carbonara abstraction as two backends > for the two interfaces. That's an accident of history not a design > requirement. -- gord __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
