Re: lxd and constraints
I just feel like we're entering a minefield that our application and CLI aren't really built to handle. I think we *should* handle it, but it needs to be well planned out, instead of just doing a tiny piece at a time and only figuring out later if we did the right thing. There's a few problems I can see: 1.) you can have 10 lxd containers with memory limit of 2GB on a machine with 4GB of RAM. Deploying 10 applications to those containers that each have a constraint of mem=2GB will not work as you expect. We could add extra bookkeeping for this, and warn you that you appear to be oversubscribing the host, but that's more work. 2.) What happens if you try to deploy a container without a memory limit on a host that already has a container on it? For example: 4GB host 2GB lxd container try to deploy a new service in a container on this machine. Do we warn? We have no clue how much RAM the service will use. Maybe it'll be fine, maybe it won't. 3.) Our CLI doesn't really work well with constraints on containers: juju deploy mysql --constraints mem=2G --to lxd Does this deploy a machine with 2GB of ram and a container with a 2GB ram limit on it? Or does it deploy a machine with 2GB of ram and a container with no limit on it? It has to be one or the other, and currently we have no way of indicating which we want to do, and no way to do the other one without using multiple commands. This is a more likely use case, creating a bigger machine that can hold multiple containers: juju add-machine --constraints mem=4GB // adds machine, let's say 5 // create a container on machine 5 with 2GB memory limit juju deploy mysql --constraints mem=2GB --to lxd:5 At least in this case, the deploy command is clear, there's only one thing they can possibly mean. Usually, the placement directive would override the constraint, but in this case, it does what you would want... but it is a littler weird that --to lxd:5 uses the constraint, but --to 5 ignores it. Note that you can't just write a simple script to do the above, because the machine number is variable, so you have to parse our output and then use that for the next command. It's still scriptable, obviously, but it's more complicated script than just two lines of bash. Also note that using this second method, you can't deploy more than one unit at a time, unless you want multiple units on containers on the same machine (which I think would be pretty odd). On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:48 AM Rick Hardingwrote: In the end, you say you want an instance with 2gb of ram and if the cloud has an instance with that exact limit it is in fact an exact limit. The key things here is the clouds don't have infinite malleable instance types like containers (this works for kvm and for lxd). So I'm not sure the mis-match is as far apart as it seems. root disk means give me a disk this big, if you ask for 2 core as long as you can match an instance type with 2 cores it's exactly the max you get. It seems part of this can be more adjusting the language from "minimum" to something closer to "requested X" where request gives it more of a "I want X" without the min/max boundaries. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:14 AM John Meinel wrote: So we could make it so that constraints are actually 'exactly' for LXD, which would then conform to both minimum and maximum, and would still be actually useful for people deploying to containers. We could certainly probe the host machine and say "you asked for 48 cores, and the host machine doesn't have it". However, note that explicit placement also takes precedence over constraints anyway. If you do: juju deploy mysql --constraints mem=4G today, and then do: juju add-unit --to 2 We don't apply the constraint limitations to that specific unit. Arguably we should at *least* be warning that the constraints for the overall application don't appear to be valid for this instance. I guess I'd rather see constraints still set limits for containers, because people really want that functionality, and that we warn any time you do a direct placement and the constraints aren't satisfied. (but warn isn't failing the attempt) John =:-> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishop wrote: On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch wrote: I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. I'm not really sure how to resolve this problem. Maybe it's not a problem. Maybe constraints just have a different meaning for containers? You have to specify the machine number you're deploying to for any deployment past the first anyway, so you're already manually choosing the machine, at which point, constraints don't really make sense anyway. I don't think Juju can handle this. Either constraints have different meanings with different cloud providers, or lxd needs
Re: Squelching Leadership messages
John A Meinelwrites: > Note that we should still report leadership changes at INFO level, which > should allow you to > debug easy things without changing the log level, as those changes should > happen very > rarely. +1, thanks for this! -- Katherine -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Squelching Leadership messages
I just proposed 2 branches, one for 2.1 and one for develop. So that the "will renew leadership" message that triggers every 30s is dropped to DEBUG level instead of INFO level. That should make those logs have a much higher signal to noise ratio. But I want to make sure that if anyone is trying to debug Leadership issues in their charms, they will likely want to use DEBUG level. Note that we should still report leadership changes at INFO level, which should allow you to debug easy things without changing the log level, as those changes should happen very rarely. John =:-> PRs> https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6797 https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6798 This is what 'juju debug-log --include-module juju.worker.leadership' looks like now: unit-ul-3: 16:51:51 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 making initial claim for ul leadership unit-ul-3: 16:51:51 INFO juju.worker.leadership ul leadership for ul/3 denied unit-ul-3: 16:51:51 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 waiting for ul leadership release unit-ul-3: 16:51:51 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 is not ul leader unit-ul-4: 16:52:01 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/4 making initial claim for ul leadership unit-ul-4: 16:52:01 INFO juju.worker.leadership ul leadership for ul/4 denied unit-ul-4: 16:52:01 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/4 waiting for ul leadership release unit-ul-4: 16:52:01 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/4 is not ul leader unit-ul-4: 16:53:27 INFO juju.worker.leadership ul/4 promoted to leadership of ul unit-ul-3: 16:53:27 INFO juju.worker.leadership ul leadership for ul/3 denied unit-ul-3: 16:53:27 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 waiting for ul leadership release unit-ul-2: 16:53:40 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/2 making initial claim for ul leadership unit-ul-2: 16:53:40 INFO juju.worker.leadership ul leadership for ul/2 denied unit-ul-2: 16:53:40 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/2 waiting for ul leadership release unit-ul-2: 16:53:41 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/2 is not ul leader unit-ul-3: 16:54:26 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 making initial claim for ul leadership unit-ul-3: 16:54:26 INFO juju.worker.leadership ul leadership for ul/3 denied unit-ul-3: 16:54:26 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 waiting for ul leadership release unit-ul-3: 16:54:26 DEBUG juju.worker.leadership ul/3 is not ul leader -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: lxd and constraints
In the end, you say you want an instance with 2gb of ram and if the cloud has an instance with that exact limit it is in fact an exact limit. The key things here is the clouds don't have infinite malleable instance types like containers (this works for kvm and for lxd). So I'm not sure the mis-match is as far apart as it seems. root disk means give me a disk this big, if you ask for 2 core as long as you can match an instance type with 2 cores it's exactly the max you get. It seems part of this can be more adjusting the language from "minimum" to something closer to "requested X" where request gives it more of a "I want X" without the min/max boundaries. On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:14 AM John Meinelwrote: > So we could make it so that constraints are actually 'exactly' for LXD, > which would then conform to both minimum and maximum, and would still be > actually useful for people deploying to containers. We could certainly > probe the host machine and say "you asked for 48 cores, and the host > machine doesn't have it". > > However, note that explicit placement also takes precedence over > constraints anyway. If you do: > juju deploy mysql --constraints mem=4G > today, and then do: > juju add-unit --to 2 > We don't apply the constraint limitations to that specific unit. Arguably > we should at *least* be warning that the constraints for the overall > application don't appear to be valid for this instance. > > I guess I'd rather see constraints still set limits for containers, > because people really want that functionality, and that we warn any time > you do a direct placement and the constraints aren't satisfied. (but warn > isn't failing the attempt) > > John > =:-> > > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishop < > stuart.bis...@canonical.com> wrote: > > On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch wrote: > > I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and > stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. > > > > I'm not really sure how to resolve this problem. Maybe it's not a > problem. Maybe constraints just have a different meaning for containers? > You have to specify the machine number you're deploying to for any > deployment past the first anyway, so you're already manually choosing the > machine, at which point, constraints don't really make sense anyway. > > > I don't think Juju can handle this. Either constraints have different > meanings with different cloud providers, or lxd needs to accept minimum > constraints (along with any other cloud providers with this behavior). > > If you decide constraints need to consistently mean minimum, then I'd > argue it is best to not pass them to current-gen lxd at all. Enforcing that > containers are restricted to the minimum viable resources declared in a > bundle does not seem helpful, and Juju does not have enough information to > choose suitable maximums (and if it did, would not know if they would > remain suitable tomorrow). > > -- > Stuart Bishop > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: lxd and constraints
So we could make it so that constraints are actually 'exactly' for LXD, which would then conform to both minimum and maximum, and would still be actually useful for people deploying to containers. We could certainly probe the host machine and say "you asked for 48 cores, and the host machine doesn't have it". However, note that explicit placement also takes precedence over constraints anyway. If you do: juju deploy mysql --constraints mem=4G today, and then do: juju add-unit --to 2 We don't apply the constraint limitations to that specific unit. Arguably we should at *least* be warning that the constraints for the overall application don't appear to be valid for this instance. I guess I'd rather see constraints still set limits for containers, because people really want that functionality, and that we warn any time you do a direct placement and the constraints aren't satisfied. (but warn isn't failing the attempt) John =:-> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Stuart Bishopwrote: > On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finch wrote: > > I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and >> stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. >> > > >> I'm not really sure how to resolve this problem. Maybe it's not a >> problem. Maybe constraints just have a different meaning for containers? >> You have to specify the machine number you're deploying to for any >> deployment past the first anyway, so you're already manually choosing the >> machine, at which point, constraints don't really make sense anyway. >> > > I don't think Juju can handle this. Either constraints have different > meanings with different cloud providers, or lxd needs to accept minimum > constraints (along with any other cloud providers with this behavior). > > If you decide constraints need to consistently mean minimum, then I'd > argue it is best to not pass them to current-gen lxd at all. Enforcing that > containers are restricted to the minimum viable resources declared in a > bundle does not seem helpful, and Juju does not have enough information to > choose suitable maximums (and if it did, would not know if they would > remain suitable tomorrow). > > -- > Stuart Bishop > > -- > Juju-dev mailing list > Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/ > mailman/listinfo/juju-dev > > -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev
Re: lxd and constraints
On 13 January 2017 at 02:20, Nate Finchwrote: I'm implementing constraints for lxd containers and provider... and > stumbled on an impedance mismatch that I don't know how to handle. > > I'm not really sure how to resolve this problem. Maybe it's not a > problem. Maybe constraints just have a different meaning for containers? > You have to specify the machine number you're deploying to for any > deployment past the first anyway, so you're already manually choosing the > machine, at which point, constraints don't really make sense anyway. > I don't think Juju can handle this. Either constraints have different meanings with different cloud providers, or lxd needs to accept minimum constraints (along with any other cloud providers with this behavior). If you decide constraints need to consistently mean minimum, then I'd argue it is best to not pass them to current-gen lxd at all. Enforcing that containers are restricted to the minimum viable resources declared in a bundle does not seem helpful, and Juju does not have enough information to choose suitable maximums (and if it did, would not know if they would remain suitable tomorrow). -- Stuart Bishop -- Juju-dev mailing list Juju-dev@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/juju-dev