Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Actually, myself and Soren were talking about this over IRC earlier today.

Soren has a theory that we may not even need respond back to the caller for a 
"you win" decision to be made. The receiving compute node could just act on it 
straight away. I think he's correct. If you can't handle the request, don't 
listen for it. No fanout required.

Remember that this proposal only really works with Flavor-based scheduling and 
not ad-hoc capability-oriented scheduling.

Which means ... the whole Scheduler concept potentially goes away.
All the Zone stuff and the Cost computation stuff would stay the same, just 
move location.

The use case that causes problems is the one I mentioned earlier:  "prefer 
hosts that don't already hold instances for this customer" ... which requires 
compute nodes to know about each others state.

But I think we can handle this in the following way:
- Modulo the number of Compute nodes by some number X. This is our "stripe" 
number.
- Keep a per-customer reference to the last "stripe" used (S, an int)
- When requesting a new instance, ask for a Compute node of Stripe (S + 1) % X
- Compute nodes listen for Flavors on their Stripe only

This implies we need # Flavors * # Stripes queues, but queues are lightweight 
anyway.

Still stewing on the ramifications of all this.

-S




From: Vishvananda Ishaya [vishvana...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:42 PM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Soren Hansen; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...


On May 25, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:


- We'd need to create a per-Flavor FanOut queue. Some Compute nodes would 
express their interest in handling the request and we'd, somehow, need to 
decide which one gets the work. Who would decide that? How could they do it 
without creating a single point of failure?


Mesos has an interesing way of doing this, where there is an external scheduler 
that receives offers for resources and can choose to take the offers or not.

http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/csci2950-u/f10/papers/mesos_tech_report.pdf

This would definitely be a radical difference from what we are doing, but 
perhaps we could provide some sort of webhook where we can pass sanitized 
offers back to clients and they can decide whether to take them or not.

Vish




Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. 
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message. 
Your cooperation is appreciated.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Vishvananda Ishaya]

On May 25, 2011, at 4:41 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

> 
> - We'd need to create a per-Flavor FanOut queue. Some Compute nodes would 
> express their interest in handling the request and we'd, somehow, need to 
> decide which one gets the work. Who would decide that? How could they do it 
> without creating a single point of failure?
> 

Mesos has an interesing way of doing this, where there is an external scheduler 
that receives offers for resources and can choose to take the offers or not.

http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/csci2950-u/f10/papers/mesos_tech_report.pdf

This would definitely be a radical difference from what we are doing, but 
perhaps we could provide some sort of webhook where we can pass sanitized 
offers back to clients and they can decide whether to take them or not. 

Vish


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Heh, you're right, I was completely mistaken :)

That's a really cool idea Soren!

One of problems we're faced with is keeping instances from the same customer 
off a single compute node. We want to spread them out to lessen the impact of 
machine failure. In order to solve this we needed to put a weight on each host 
candidate and use that to decide the final ordering. The implication is we 
can't dump all the requests in the Scheduler queues and have them 
round-robin'ed, as is currently done. A single Scheduler has to devise a plan 
and then all the Compute nodes can execute them concurrently. A large part of 
the Distributed Scheduler work has been working around this issue.

That said, your idea has tremendous merit for those customers that don't have 
that requirement. 

Right now, we have two ways of dispersing "Provision Resource" requests:
1. The way it is now: dump all the requests in the Scheduler queues and have 
them picked off concurrently.
2. The way the Distributed Scheduler works: Send the request for N resources 
out as an atomic unit. A single Scheduler devises a plan and sends tiny 
units-of-work to the Compute nodes.

Your idea would be the third approach:
3. Place the request in a Flavor-specific queue and let any Compute node 
capable handle the request.

Let me give a little thought how we can do this cleanly. It's going to get 
complicated in the code if each request potentially has a different dispersal 
strategy. The request dispersal strategy seems to go hand-in-hand with the 
underlying worker-node selection process. They both need to agree on the 
approach. 

But ... it's certainly not impossible. We just need to bundle the code in 
nova.compute.api.create() to the configured nova.scheduler.driver ... 1:1
Believe me, based on the stuff we've got going on in the Distributed Scheduler, 
that would be a really nice refactoring. 

As an aside, the implications of #3 that I can see at first blush:
- We'd be effectively bypassing the scheduler, so we'd need to think about how 
that would work with Zones since Queues don't span Zones.
- We'd need to create a per-Flavor FanOut queue. Some Compute nodes would 
express their interest in handling the request and we'd, somehow, need to 
decide which one gets the work. Who would decide that? How could they do it 
without creating a single point of failure?

Regardless ... it's a great idea and definitely one that deserves more 
consideration.

Thanks!
-S


From: Soren Hansen [so...@linux2go.dk]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 4:56 PM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

2011/5/23 Sandy Walsh :
> To Soren's point about "losing the ability to rely on a fixed set of
> topics in the message queue for doing scheduling" this is not the case,
> there are no new topics introduced.

That's not exactly what I meant.

If we stuck with the simple flavours that we have right now, we could
schedule stuff exclusively using the message queue. The scheduler
would not need to know *anything* about the various compute nodes.
Scheduling an instance of flavour X would be achieved simply by
sending a "run this instance" message on the message queue with the
"flavour-X" topic. Any compute node able to accommodate an instance of
that size would be subscribed to that topic, and the message queue
would simply route the message to a "random" one of them. As a compute
node fills up, it'll unsubscribe from the topics representing flavours
that it no longer has room for. This sounds Very Scalable[tm] to me :)

Even if all the scheduling attributes we come up with were discrete
and enumerable, the cartesian product of all of them is potentially
*huge*, so having a topic for each of the possible combinations sounds
like very little fun. If any of them are not enumerable, it gets even
less fun. So, adding these capabilities would get in the way of
implementing something like the above. I guess it could be a
configuration option, i.e. if you choose the rich scheduling option
set, you don't get to use the cool scheduler.

--
Soren Hansen| http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer| http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace. 
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original mess

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Soren Hansen]

2011/5/23 Sandy Walsh :
> To Soren's point about "losing the ability to rely on a fixed set of
> topics in the message queue for doing scheduling" this is not the case,
> there are no new topics introduced.

That's not exactly what I meant.

If we stuck with the simple flavours that we have right now, we could
schedule stuff exclusively using the message queue. The scheduler
would not need to know *anything* about the various compute nodes.
Scheduling an instance of flavour X would be achieved simply by
sending a "run this instance" message on the message queue with the
"flavour-X" topic. Any compute node able to accommodate an instance of
that size would be subscribed to that topic, and the message queue
would simply route the message to a "random" one of them. As a compute
node fills up, it'll unsubscribe from the topics representing flavours
that it no longer has room for. This sounds Very Scalable[tm] to me :)

Even if all the scheduling attributes we come up with were discrete
and enumerable, the cartesian product of all of them is potentially
*huge*, so having a topic for each of the possible combinations sounds
like very little fun. If any of them are not enumerable, it gets even
less fun. So, adding these capabilities would get in the way of
implementing something like the above. I guess it could be a
configuration option, i.e. if you choose the rich scheduling option
set, you don't get to use the cool scheduler.

--
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jay Pipes]

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Sandy Walsh  wrote:
> Actually, I'm cool with it either way.
>
> I'm not really sure of the value in letting users generate their own 
> Reservation ID though. What would the typical motivation be?
>
> That said, anyone else have preferences (PUT + user defined reservation ID's) 
> vs. (POST + zone generated ID's)?

POST + zone generated reservation IDs.

-jay

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Yup ... agreed.

I'll press on in this direction (POST with zone generated ID's)

-S



From: Todd Willey [t...@ansolabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:13 PM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: Brian Lamar; openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

I'm for zone-generated ids.  If we take user input it is one more
thing to sanitize and scope accordingly.  As the number is essentially
disposable, I don't know why they would care to provide one anyway, it
just seems like changing who is responsible for making a uuid.

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Sandy Walsh  wrote:
> Actually, I'm cool with it either way.
>
> I'm not really sure of the value in letting users generate their own 
> Reservation ID though. What would the typical motivation be?
>
> That said, anyone else have preferences (PUT + user defined reservation ID's) 
> vs. (POST + zone generated ID's)?
>
> -S
>
> 
> From: Brian Lamar [brian.la...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:30 AM
> To: Sandy Walsh
> Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
>
> Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/
>
> PUT would work in my mind if we allowed users to create their own 
> ReservationIDs, but since (I assume) we're generating them it would make more 
> sense to me to use POST on /zones/server.
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: "Sandy Walsh" 
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
> To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net" 
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
>
> Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any 
> conclusions for the near term.
>
> Unless someone screams, we will be proceeding along the following lines:
>
> 1. Adding PUT /zones/server/ to create an instance that will return a 
> Reservation ID (a UUID). It will also accept a num-instances parameter.
> (I'll refactor with the existing code to keep the duplication to a minimum)
>
> 2. python-novaclient will be extended to take an optional reservation ID for 
> GET /servers, which will be used to list instances across zones based on 
> Reservation ID
>
> None of this should affect the existing OS API or EC2 API functionality.
>
> We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an 
> OS API 2.0 world.
>
> /me listens for the screams ...
>
> -S
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
> prohibited.
> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
> e-mail
> at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
> Your cooperation is appreciated.
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

POST isn't an issue for me. I honestly don't know why I wrote PUT ... I blame 
the Canadian holiday.






From: Ed Leafe

On May 24, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

> Hmm, not sure I like changing the return type based on the input type. Return 
> types should be consistent.


Agreed, but I liked changing the meaning of PUT even less. :)


-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Todd Willey]

I'm for zone-generated ids.  If we take user input it is one more
thing to sanitize and scope accordingly.  As the number is essentially
disposable, I don't know why they would care to provide one anyway, it
just seems like changing who is responsible for making a uuid.

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Sandy Walsh  wrote:
> Actually, I'm cool with it either way.
>
> I'm not really sure of the value in letting users generate their own 
> Reservation ID though. What would the typical motivation be?
>
> That said, anyone else have preferences (PUT + user defined reservation ID's) 
> vs. (POST + zone generated ID's)?
>
> -S
>
> 
> From: Brian Lamar [brian.la...@rackspace.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:30 AM
> To: Sandy Walsh
> Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
>
> Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/
>
> PUT would work in my mind if we allowed users to create their own 
> ReservationIDs, but since (I assume) we're generating them it would make more 
> sense to me to use POST on /zones/server.
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: "Sandy Walsh" 
> Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
> To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net" 
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...
>
> Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any 
> conclusions for the near term.
>
> Unless someone screams, we will be proceeding along the following lines:
>
> 1. Adding PUT /zones/server/ to create an instance that will return a 
> Reservation ID (a UUID). It will also accept a num-instances parameter.
> (I'll refactor with the existing code to keep the duplication to a minimum)
>
> 2. python-novaclient will be extended to take an optional reservation ID for 
> GET /servers, which will be used to list instances across zones based on 
> Reservation ID
>
> None of this should affect the existing OS API or EC2 API functionality.
>
> We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an 
> OS API 2.0 world.
>
> /me listens for the screams ...
>
> -S
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
> prohibited.
> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
> e-mail
> at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
> Your cooperation is appreciated.
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Ed Leafe]

On May 24, 2011, at 10:43 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

> I'm not really sure of the value in letting users generate their own 
> Reservation ID though. What would the typical motivation be?
> 
> That said, anyone else have preferences (PUT + user defined reservation ID's) 
> vs. (POST + zone generated ID's)?

Easy - user-generated reservation IDs would almost certainly result in 
duplicates. Imagine if 3rd parties using the API each set up a system that 
generated sequential integer reservation IDs...


-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Ed Leafe]

On May 24, 2011, at 11:05 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

> Hmm, not sure I like changing the return type based on the input type. Return 
> types should be consistent. 


Agreed, but I liked changing the meaning of PUT even less. :)


-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Hmm, not sure I like changing the return type based on the input type. Return 
types should be consistent. 




From: Ed Leafe
>  If we are going to add an optional parameter to specify the number of 
> instances, would it be acceptable to specify that when that parameter is 
> included, a reservation ID is returned instead of an instance ID? IOW, 
> existing calls will work the same, but calls that take advantage of this new 
> option would expect a different result.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Ed Leafe]

On May 24, 2011, at 10:30 AM, Brian Lamar wrote:

> Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/
> 
> PUT would work in my mind if we allowed users to create their own 
> ReservationIDs, but since (I assume) we're generating them it would make more 
> sense to me to use POST on /zones/server.

Agreed. Server creation should certainly be a POST.

If we are going to add an optional parameter to specify the number of 
instances, would it be acceptable to specify that when that parameter is 
included, a reservation ID is returned instead of an instance ID? IOW, existing 
calls will work the same, but calls that take advantage of this new option 
would expect a different result.



-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Actually, I'm cool with it either way. 

I'm not really sure of the value in letting users generate their own 
Reservation ID though. What would the typical motivation be?

That said, anyone else have preferences (PUT + user defined reservation ID's) 
vs. (POST + zone generated ID's)?

-S


From: Brian Lamar [brian.la...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 11:30 AM
To: Sandy Walsh
Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/

PUT would work in my mind if we allowed users to create their own 
ReservationIDs, but since (I assume) we're generating them it would make more 
sense to me to use POST on /zones/server.

-Original Message-
From: "Sandy Walsh" 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net" 
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any conclusions 
for the near term.

Unless someone screams, we will be proceeding along the following lines:

1. Adding PUT /zones/server/ to create an instance that will return a 
Reservation ID (a UUID). It will also accept a num-instances parameter.
(I'll refactor with the existing code to keep the duplication to a minimum)

2. python-novaclient will be extended to take an optional reservation ID for 
GET /servers, which will be used to list instances across zones based on 
Reservation ID

None of this should affect the existing OS API or EC2 API functionality.

We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an OS 
API 2.0 world.

/me listens for the screams ...

-S


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Brian Lamar]

Only a small scream on PUT /zones/server/

PUT would work in my mind if we allowed users to create their own 
ReservationIDs, but since (I assume) we're generating them it would make more 
sense to me to use POST on /zones/server.

-Original Message-
From: "Sandy Walsh" 
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:54pm
To: "openstack@lists.launchpad.net" 
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any conclusions 
for the near term.

Unless someone screams, we will be proceeding along the following lines:

1. Adding PUT /zones/server/ to create an instance that will return a 
Reservation ID (a UUID). It will also accept a num-instances parameter. 
(I'll refactor with the existing code to keep the duplication to a minimum)

2. python-novaclient will be extended to take an optional reservation ID for 
GET /servers, which will be used to list instances across zones based on 
Reservation ID

None of this should affect the existing OS API or EC2 API functionality. 

We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an OS 
API 2.0 world.

/me listens for the screams ...

-S


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jay Pipes]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 5:54 PM, Sandy Walsh  wrote:
> We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an 
> OS API 2.0 world.

I'll bring the Festivus pole.

-jay

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Thanks to all for the input. I don't think we've really come to any conclusions 
for the near term.

Unless someone screams, we will be proceeding along the following lines:

1. Adding PUT /zones/server/ to create an instance that will return a 
Reservation ID (a UUID). It will also accept a num-instances parameter. 
(I'll refactor with the existing code to keep the duplication to a minimum)

2. python-novaclient will be extended to take an optional reservation ID for 
GET /servers, which will be used to list instances across zones based on 
Reservation ID

None of this should affect the existing OS API or EC2 API functionality. 

We can have Feats of Strength later to decide how this should live on in an OS 
API 2.0 world.

/me listens for the screams ...

-S


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Eric Day]

Also keep in mind that UUIDs alone may not be sufficient. As was
discussed previously in a marathon ID rename thread, we have to
handle the case of federated zones gone bad that could purposefully
produce UUIDs that collide. We may want any extra namespace such as
"account:uuid" or "zone:uuid", but of course we need to figure out
federated account and zone details first.

-Eric

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 05:28:20PM +, Jorge Williams wrote:
> +1
> 
> On May 23, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
> 
> > So I think we've identified the real problem...
> > 
> > :)
> > 
> > sounds like we really need to do the UUID switchover to optimize here.
> > 
> > Vish
> > 
> > On May 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> > 
> >> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
> >>  wrote:
> >>> Why does getting the instance id require the API to block?  I can create 
> >>> 1 or 1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 
> >>> instance ids in a list of  entries in the same amount of time.
> >> 
> >> Instance IDs aren't currently UUIDs :) They are auto-increment
> >> integers that are local to the zone database. And because they are
> >> currently assigned by the zone, the work of identifying the
> >> appropriate zone to place a requested instance in would need to be a
> >> synchronous operation (you can't have the instance ID until you find
> >> the zone to put it in).
> >> 
> >> -jay
> >> 
> >> ___
> >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> >> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> >> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

+1

On May 23, 2011, at 11:54 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:

> So I think we've identified the real problem...
> 
> :)
> 
> sounds like we really need to do the UUID switchover to optimize here.
> 
> Vish
> 
> On May 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
>>  wrote:
>>> Why does getting the instance id require the API to block?  I can create 1 
>>> or 1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 
>>> instance ids in a list of  entries in the same amount of time.
>> 
>> Instance IDs aren't currently UUIDs :) They are auto-increment
>> integers that are local to the zone database. And because they are
>> currently assigned by the zone, the work of identifying the
>> appropriate zone to place a requested instance in would need to be a
>> synchronous operation (you can't have the instance ID until you find
>> the zone to put it in).
>> 
>> -jay
>> 
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Changing to UUID is a great thing to do, but not sure if it solves our problem. 
We still need to differentiate between an Instance ID and a Reservation ID.

Additionally, switching to UUID has to be a 2.0 thing, since it's going to bust 
all backwards compatibility. The ability to cast to int() is a general 
assumption in RS API clients.

With respect to "multiple single-shot requests", assume 10 schedulers pick up 
10 instance requests concurrently. Their view of the world will be largely the 
same so they will all attempt to provision to the same host. VS a single 
request for 10 instances where the scheduler can be smart about where it 
attempts to place them.  And then there's the socket / api server load from 
1000 single-shot requests as mentioned elsewhere in this thread. 

I agree that 3 & 4 may be nice to haves. I've simply heard explicit demand for 
#4 from customers and I don't believe the delta to get their is that high.

-S

PS> You're not speaking out of turn. I need to do a better job of articulating 
the zones/dist-sched architecture ... it's underway :)


From: openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net 
[openstack-bounces+sandy.walsh=rackspace@lists.launchpad.net] on behalf of 
Mark Washenberger [mark.washenber...@rackspace.com]
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 1:54 PM
To: openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Subject: Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

I'm totally on board with this as a future revision of the OS api. However it 
sounds like we need some sort of solution for 1.1.

> 1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two 
> different
> things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N
> instances. I don't like the idea of overloading these concepts. How is the 
> caller
> supposed to know if they're getting back a ReservationID or an InstanceID? 
> How to
> they ask for updates for each (one returns a single value, one returns a 
> list?).

Rather than overloading the two, could we just make instance-id a uuid 
asynchronous and pare down the amount of info returned in the server create 
response?

> 2. We need to handle "provision N instances" so the scheduler can effectively 
> load
> balance the requests by looking at the current state of the system in a single
> view. Concurrent single-shot requests would be picked up by many different
> schedulers in many different zones and give an erratic distribution.

Are we worried about concurrent or rapid sequential requests?

Is there any way we could cut down on the erraticism by funneling these types 
of requests through a smaller set of schedulers? I'm very unfamiliar with the 
scheduler system but it seems like maybe routing choices at a higher level 
scheduler could help here.

3. and 4. sound like great features albeit ones that could wait on a future 
revision of the api.

Apologies if I'm speaking out of turn and should just read up on scheduler code!


"Sandy Walsh"  said:

> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> Cool, I think you all understand the concerns here:
>
> 1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two 
> different
> things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N
> instances. I don't like the idea of overloading these concepts. How is the 
> caller
> supposed to know if they're getting back a ReservationID or an InstanceID? 
> How to
> they ask for updates for each (one returns a single value, one returns a 
> list?).
>
> 2. We need to handle "provision N instances" so the scheduler can effectively 
> load
> balance the requests by looking at the current state of the system in a single
> view. Concurrent single-shot requests would be picked up by many different
> schedulers in many different zones and give an erratic distribution.
>
> 3. As Soren pointed out, we may want certain semantics around failure such as 
> "all
> or nothing"
>
> 4. Other Nova users have mentioned a desire for instance requests such as "has
> GPU, is in North America and has a blue sticker on the box". If we try to do 
> that
> with Flavors we need to clutter the Flavor table with most-common-denominator
> fields. We can handle this now with Zone/Host Capabilities and not have to 
> extend
> the table at all. If you look at nova/tests/scheduler/test_host_filter.py 
> you'll
> see an example of this in action. To Soren's

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Vishvananda Ishaya]

So I think we've identified the real problem...

:)

sounds like we really need to do the UUID switchover to optimize here.

Vish

On May 23, 2011, at 9:42 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
>  wrote:
>> Why does getting the instance id require the API to block?  I can create 1 
>> or 1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 
>> instance ids in a list of  entries in the same amount of time.
> 
> Instance IDs aren't currently UUIDs :) They are auto-increment
> integers that are local to the zone database. And because they are
> currently assigned by the zone, the work of identifying the
> appropriate zone to place a requested instance in would need to be a
> synchronous operation (you can't have the instance ID until you find
> the zone to put it in).
> 
> -jay
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Mark Washenberger]

I'm totally on board with this as a future revision of the OS api. However it 
sounds like we need some sort of solution for 1.1.

> 1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two 
> different
> things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N
> instances. I don't like the idea of overloading these concepts. How is the 
> caller
> supposed to know if they're getting back a ReservationID or an InstanceID? 
> How to
> they ask for updates for each (one returns a single value, one returns a 
> list?).

Rather than overloading the two, could we just make instance-id a uuid 
asynchronous and pare down the amount of info returned in the server create 
response?

> 2. We need to handle "provision N instances" so the scheduler can effectively 
> load
> balance the requests by looking at the current state of the system in a single
> view. Concurrent single-shot requests would be picked up by many different
> schedulers in many different zones and give an erratic distribution.

Are we worried about concurrent or rapid sequential requests?

Is there any way we could cut down on the erraticism by funneling these types 
of requests through a smaller set of schedulers? I'm very unfamiliar with the 
scheduler system but it seems like maybe routing choices at a higher level 
scheduler could help here.

3. and 4. sound like great features albeit ones that could wait on a future 
revision of the api.

Apologies if I'm speaking out of turn and should just read up on scheduler code!


"Sandy Walsh"  said:

> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> Cool, I think you all understand the concerns here:
> 
> 1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two 
> different
> things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N
> instances. I don't like the idea of overloading these concepts. How is the 
> caller
> supposed to know if they're getting back a ReservationID or an InstanceID? 
> How to
> they ask for updates for each (one returns a single value, one returns a 
> list?).
> 
> 2. We need to handle "provision N instances" so the scheduler can effectively 
> load
> balance the requests by looking at the current state of the system in a single
> view. Concurrent single-shot requests would be picked up by many different
> schedulers in many different zones and give an erratic distribution.
> 
> 3. As Soren pointed out, we may want certain semantics around failure such as 
> "all
> or nothing"
> 
> 4. Other Nova users have mentioned a desire for instance requests such as "has
> GPU, is in North America and has a blue sticker on the box". If we try to do 
> that
> with Flavors we need to clutter the Flavor table with most-common-denominator
> fields. We can handle this now with Zone/Host Capabilities and not have to 
> extend
> the table at all. If you look at nova/tests/scheduler/test_host_filter.py 
> you'll
> see an example of this in action. To Soren's point about "losing the ability 
> to
> rely on a fixed set of topics in the message queue for doing scheduling" this 
> is
> not the case, there are no new topics introduced. Instead there are simply 
> extra
> arguments passed into the run_instance() method of the scheduler that 
> understands
> these more complex instance requests.
> 
> That said, I was thinking of adding a POST /zone/server command to support 
> these
> extended operations. It wouldn't affect anything currently in place and makes 
> it
> clear that this is a zone-specific operation. Existing EC2 and core OS API
> operations are performed as usual.
> 
> Likewise, we need a way to query the results of a Reservation ID request 
> without
> busting GET /servers/detail ... perhaps GET /zones/servers could do that?
> 
> The downside is that now we have two ways to create an instance that needs to 
> be
> tested, etc.
> 
> -S
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is
> prohibited.
> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
> e-mail
> at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
> Your cooperation is appreciated.
> 
> 



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jay Pipes]

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Brian Schott
 wrote:
> Why does getting the instance id require the API to block?  I can create 1 or 
> 1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 instance 
> ids in a list of  entries in the same amount of time.

Instance IDs aren't currently UUIDs :) They are auto-increment
integers that are local to the zone database. And because they are
currently assigned by the zone, the work of identifying the
appropriate zone to place a requested instance in would need to be a
synchronous operation (you can't have the instance ID until you find
the zone to put it in).

-jay

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Brian Schott]

Why does getting the instance id require the API to block?  I can create 1 or 
1000 UUIDs in order (1) time in the API server and hand back 1000 instance ids 
in a list of  entries in the same amount of time.  I'm more concerned 
about an external user hitting the API server 1000 times to generate a 1000 
instance request, then hitting the API server 1000 more times to check the 
status until a 1000 instances return "running".  That's a lot of socket 
connections.

The SeverDetailsResponse isn't a list?  You can't just return:

...


...


...



Brian Schott, CTO
Nimbis Services, Inc.
brian.sch...@nimbisservices.com





On May 23, 2011, at 11:52 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:

> On May 23, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
> 
>> I don't see how that peculates anything.  Treat the instance id as the 
>> reservation id on single instance creations -- have a separate reservation 
>> id when launching multiple instances.  End of the day even if you have the 
>> capability to launch multiple instances at once you should be able to poll a 
>> specific instance for changes.  
> 
> 
>   I'm not too crazy about an API call returning one thing (instance ID) 
> for one call, and a different thing (reservation ID) for the same call, with 
> the only difference being the value of one parameter. Do we do anything like 
> that anywhere else in the API?
> 
>   Also, with distributed zones, getting an instance ID requires the api 
> to block until the host selection can be completed, and the host's zone 
> database updated with the new instance information. Granted, that's not an 
> agonizingly slow or expensive operation even if it does involve several 
> inter-zone HTTP calls, but it isn't the cleanest and most scalable design IMO.
> 
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

On May 23, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

From: Jorge Williams

> So this is 2.0 API stuff -- right.

Well, we need it now ... so we have to find a short term solution.

> Why not simply have a request on the server list with the reservation id as a 
> parameter.
> This can easily be supported as an extension.
>
> So GET  /servers/detail?RID=3993882
>
> I would probably call it a build ID.  That would narrow the response to only 
> those that are
> currently being build with a single request (3993882).

I'm cool with that ... why does it need to be an extension, per se? It's just 
an additional parameter which will be ignored until something going looking for 
it.

To prevent clashes.  To detect if the feature is available -- it probably wont 
be available in our legacy system.


How about the POST /zones/server idea?


I'll have to think about it.

-S

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

From: Jorge Williams

> So this is 2.0 API stuff -- right.

Well, we need it now ... so we have to find a short term solution.

> Why not simply have a request on the server list with the reservation id as a 
> parameter.
> This can easily be supported as an extension.
>
> So GET  /servers/detail?RID=3993882
>
> I would probably call it a build ID.  That would narrow the response to only 
> those that are
> currently being build with a single request (3993882).

I'm cool with that ... why does it need to be an extension, per se? It's just 
an additional parameter which will be ignored until something going looking for 
it.

How about the POST /zones/server idea?

-S
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Ed Leafe]

On May 23, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

> Likewise, we need a way to query the results of a Reservation ID request 
> without busting GET /servers/detail ... perhaps GET /zones/servers could do 
> that?

GET /servers/reservation/  perhaps? Returns a list of instances 
similar to GET /servers.


-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

I'd like to step back and denote that there won't be support for this in the 
1.1 API -- unless this is an extension.  So this is 2.0 API stuff -- right.  
Other comments inline:

On May 23, 2011, at 10:53 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

Cool, I think you all understand the concerns here:

1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two different 
things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N 
instances. I don't like the idea of overloading these concepts. How is the 
caller supposed to know if they're getting back a ReservationID or an 
InstanceID? How to they ask for updates for each (one returns a single value, 
one returns a list?).


The user doesn't even need to know that there are two concepts at all -- at 
least not in the 1.1 world.  When creating single instances then they only see 
a single instance ID.

2. We need to handle "provision N instances" so the scheduler can effectively 
load balance the requests by looking at the current state of the system in a 
single view. Concurrent single-shot requests would be picked up by many 
different schedulers in many different zones and give an erratic distribution.

3. As Soren pointed out, we may want certain semantics around failure such as 
"all or nothing"

4. Other Nova users have mentioned a desire for instance requests such as "has 
GPU, is in North America and has a blue sticker on the box". If we try to do 
that with Flavors we need to clutter the Flavor table with 
most-common-denominator fields. We can handle this now with Zone/Host 
Capabilities and not have to extend the table at all. If you look at 
nova/tests/scheduler/test_host_filter.py you'll see an example of this in 
action. To Soren's point about "losing the ability to rely on a fixed set of 
topics in the message queue for doing scheduling" this is not the case, there 
are no new topics introduced. Instead there are simply extra arguments passed 
into the run_instance() method of the scheduler that understands these more 
complex instance requests.

That said, I was thinking of adding a POST /zone/server command to support 
these extended operations. It wouldn't affect anything currently in place and 
makes it clear that this is a zone-specific operation. Existing EC2 and core OS 
API operations are performed as usual.

Likewise, we need a way to query the results of a Reservation ID request 
without busting GET /servers/detail ... perhaps GET /zones/servers could do 
that?


Why not simply have a request on the server list with the reservation id as a 
parameter.  This can easily be supported as an extension.

So GET  /servers/detail?RID=3993882

I would probably call it a build ID.  That would narrow the response to only 
those that are currently being build with a single request (3993882).

The downside is that now we have two ways to create an instance that needs to 
be tested, etc.

-S

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original 
message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : 
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Sandy Walsh]

Cool, I think you all understand the concerns here:

1. We can't treat the InstanceID as a ReservationID since they do two different 
things. InstanceID's are unique per instance and ReservationID's might span N 
instances. I don't like the idea of overloading these concepts. How is the 
caller supposed to know if they're getting back a ReservationID or an 
InstanceID? How to they ask for updates for each (one returns a single value, 
one returns a list?).

2. We need to handle "provision N instances" so the scheduler can effectively 
load balance the requests by looking at the current state of the system in a 
single view. Concurrent single-shot requests would be picked up by many 
different schedulers in many different zones and give an erratic distribution.

3. As Soren pointed out, we may want certain semantics around failure such as 
"all or nothing"

4. Other Nova users have mentioned a desire for instance requests such as "has 
GPU, is in North America and has a blue sticker on the box". If we try to do 
that with Flavors we need to clutter the Flavor table with 
most-common-denominator fields. We can handle this now with Zone/Host 
Capabilities and not have to extend the table at all. If you look at 
nova/tests/scheduler/test_host_filter.py you'll see an example of this in 
action. To Soren's point about "losing the ability to rely on a fixed set of 
topics in the message queue for doing scheduling" this is not the case, there 
are no new topics introduced. Instead there are simply extra arguments passed 
into the run_instance() method of the scheduler that understands these more 
complex instance requests.

That said, I was thinking of adding a POST /zone/server command to support 
these extended operations. It wouldn't affect anything currently in place and 
makes it clear that this is a zone-specific operation. Existing EC2 and core OS 
API operations are performed as usual.

Likewise, we need a way to query the results of a Reservation ID request 
without busting GET /servers/detail ... perhaps GET /zones/servers could do 
that?

The downside is that now we have two ways to create an instance that needs to 
be tested, etc.

-S


Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Ed Leafe]

On May 23, 2011, at 11:41 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:

> I don't see how that peculates anything.  Treat the instance id as the 
> reservation id on single instance creations -- have a separate reservation id 
> when launching multiple instances.  End of the day even if you have the 
> capability to launch multiple instances at once you should be able to poll a 
> specific instance for changes.  


I'm not too crazy about an API call returning one thing (instance ID) 
for one call, and a different thing (reservation ID) for the same call, with 
the only difference being the value of one parameter. Do we do anything like 
that anywhere else in the API?

Also, with distributed zones, getting an instance ID requires the api 
to block until the host selection can be completed, and the host's zone 
database updated with the new instance information. Granted, that's not an 
agonizingly slow or expensive operation even if it does involve several 
inter-zone HTTP calls, but it isn't the cleanest and most scalable design IMO.


-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

On May 23, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Ed Leafe wrote:

> On May 23, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
> 
>> If we make the instance ID a unique ID -- which we probably should.   Why 
>> not also treat it as a reservation id and generate/assign it up front?
> 
> 
>   Because that precludes the 1:M relationship of a reservation to created 
> instances. 
> 
>   If I request 100 instances, they are all created with unique IDs, but 
> with a single reservation ID. 
> 

I don't see how that peculates anything.  Treat the instance id as the 
reservation id on single instance creations -- have a separate reservation id 
when launching multiple instances.  End of the day even if you have the 
capability to launch multiple instances at once you should be able to poll a 
specific instance for changes.  

> 
> 
> -- Ed Leafe
> 


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

On May 23, 2011, at 10:15 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

> /me wishes you were on IRC ;)
> 
> Discussing this with Mark Wash on IRC...
> 

I'll stop by :-)

> Basically, I'm cool with using a UUID-like pregenerated instance ID
> and returning that as a reservation ID in the 1.X API.

Cool.

> I was really
> just brainstorming about a future, request-centric 2.0 API that would
> allow for more atomic operations on the instance creation level.
> 

Okay, I'll follow up.

> Cheers!
> jay
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Jorge Williams
>  wrote:
>> Comments inline:
>> 
>> On May 23, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jorge! Comments inline :)
>>> 
>>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jorge Williams
>>>  wrote:
 Hi Sandy,
 My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating
 multiple instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API.
>>> 
>>> Actually, I don't think we *could* do this without issuing a 2.0 API.
>>> The reason is because changing POST /servers to return a reservation
>>> ID instead of the instance ID would break existing clients, and
>>> therefore a new major API version would be needed.
>> 
>> Why?  Clients just see an ID.  I'm suggesting that for single instances, the 
>> instanceID == the reservationID.
>> In the API you query based on Some ID.
>> 
>> http://my.openstack-compute.net/v1.1/2233/servers/{Some unique ID}
>> 
>>> 
 Same
 thing for changing the way in which flavors work.  Both features can be
 brought in as extensions though.
>>> 
>>> Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "changing the
>>> way flavours work". Could you elaborate a bit on that?
>> 
>> Sandy was suggesting we employ a method "richer than Flavors".  I'll let him 
>> elaborate.
>> 
>>> 
 I should note that when creating single instances the instance id should
 really be equivalent to a reservation id.  That is, the create should be
 asynchronous and the instance id can be used to poll for changes.
>>> 
>>> Hmm, it's actually a bit different. In one case, you need to actually
>>> get an identifier for the instance from whatever database (zone db?)
>>> would be responsible for creating the instance. In the other case, you
>>> merely create a token/task that can then be queried for a status of
>>> the operation. In the former case, you unfortunately make the
>>> scheduler's work synchronous, since the instance identifier would need
>>> to be determined from the zone the instance would be created in. :(
>>> 
>> 
>> If we make the instance ID a unique ID -- which we probably should.   Why 
>> not also treat it as a reservation id and generate/assign it up front?
>> 
 Because
 of this, a user can create multiple instances in very rapid succession.
>>> 
>>> Not really the same as issuing a request to create 100 instances. Not
>>> only would the user interface implications be different, but you can
>>> also do all-or-nothing scheduling with a request for 100 instances
>>> versus 100 requests for a single instance. All-or-nothing allows a
>>> provider to pin a request to a specific SLA or policy. For example, if
>>> a client requests 100 instances be created with requirements X, Y, and
>>> Z, and you create 88 instances and 12 instances don't get created
>>> because there is no more available room that meets requirements X, Y,
>>> and Z, then you have failed to service the entire request...
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I totally understand this.  I'm just suggesting that since this is not is 
>> scope for 1.1 -- you should be able to launch individual instances as an 
>> alternative.
>> 
>> Also, keep in mind that the all-or-nothing requires a compensation when 
>> something fails.
>> 
>> 
>> 
 Additionally, the changes-since feature in the API allows a user to
 efficiently monitor the creation of multiple instances simultaneously.
>>> 
>>> Agreed, but I think that is tangential to the above discussion.
>>> 
>>> Cheers!
>>> jay
>>> 
 -jOrGe W.
 On May 23, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
 
 Hi everyone,
 We're deep into the Zone / Distributed Scheduler merges and stumbling onto
 an interesting problem.
 EC2 API has two important concepts that I don't see in OS API (1.0 or 1.1):
 - Reservation ID
 - Number of Instances to create
 Typical use case: "Create 1000 instances". The API allocates a Reservation
 ID and all the instances are created until this ID. The ID is immediately
 returned to the user who can later query on this ID to check status.
 From what I can see, the OS API only deals with single instance creation 
 and
 returns the Instance ID from the call. Both of these need to change to
 support Reservation ID's and creating N instances. The value of the
 distributed scheduler comes from being able to create N instances load
 balanced across zones.
 Anyone have any suggestions how we can support this?
 Additionally, and less important at this sta

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Ed Leafe]

On May 23, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:

> If we make the instance ID a unique ID -- which we probably should.   Why not 
> also treat it as a reservation id and generate/assign it up front?


Because that precludes the 1:M relationship of a reservation to created 
instances. 

If I request 100 instances, they are all created with unique IDs, but 
with a single reservation ID. 



-- Ed Leafe


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jay Pipes]

/me wishes you were on IRC ;)

Discussing this with Mark Wash on IRC...

Basically, I'm cool with using a UUID-like pregenerated instance ID
and returning that as a reservation ID in the 1.X API. I was really
just brainstorming about a future, request-centric 2.0 API that would
allow for more atomic operations on the instance creation level.

Cheers!
jay

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Jorge Williams
 wrote:
> Comments inline:
>
> On May 23, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>
>> Hi Jorge! Comments inline :)
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jorge Williams
>>  wrote:
>>> Hi Sandy,
>>> My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating
>>> multiple instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API.
>>
>> Actually, I don't think we *could* do this without issuing a 2.0 API.
>> The reason is because changing POST /servers to return a reservation
>> ID instead of the instance ID would break existing clients, and
>> therefore a new major API version would be needed.
>
> Why?  Clients just see an ID.  I'm suggesting that for single instances, the 
> instanceID == the reservationID.
> In the API you query based on Some ID.
>
> http://my.openstack-compute.net/v1.1/2233/servers/{Some unique ID}
>
>>
>>> Same
>>> thing for changing the way in which flavors work.  Both features can be
>>> brought in as extensions though.
>>
>> Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "changing the
>> way flavours work". Could you elaborate a bit on that?
>
> Sandy was suggesting we employ a method "richer than Flavors".  I'll let him 
> elaborate.
>
>>
>>> I should note that when creating single instances the instance id should
>>> really be equivalent to a reservation id.  That is, the create should be
>>> asynchronous and the instance id can be used to poll for changes.
>>
>> Hmm, it's actually a bit different. In one case, you need to actually
>> get an identifier for the instance from whatever database (zone db?)
>> would be responsible for creating the instance. In the other case, you
>> merely create a token/task that can then be queried for a status of
>> the operation. In the former case, you unfortunately make the
>> scheduler's work synchronous, since the instance identifier would need
>> to be determined from the zone the instance would be created in. :(
>>
>
> If we make the instance ID a unique ID -- which we probably should.   Why not 
> also treat it as a reservation id and generate/assign it up front?
>
>>> Because
>>> of this, a user can create multiple instances in very rapid succession.
>>
>> Not really the same as issuing a request to create 100 instances. Not
>> only would the user interface implications be different, but you can
>> also do all-or-nothing scheduling with a request for 100 instances
>> versus 100 requests for a single instance. All-or-nothing allows a
>> provider to pin a request to a specific SLA or policy. For example, if
>> a client requests 100 instances be created with requirements X, Y, and
>> Z, and you create 88 instances and 12 instances don't get created
>> because there is no more available room that meets requirements X, Y,
>> and Z, then you have failed to service the entire request...
>>
>
>
> I totally understand this.  I'm just suggesting that since this is not is 
> scope for 1.1 -- you should be able to launch individual instances as an 
> alternative.
>
> Also, keep in mind that the all-or-nothing requires a compensation when 
> something fails.
>
>
>
>>> Additionally, the changes-since feature in the API allows a user to
>>> efficiently monitor the creation of multiple instances simultaneously.
>>
>> Agreed, but I think that is tangential to the above discussion.
>>
>> Cheers!
>> jay
>>
>>> -jOrGe W.
>>> On May 23, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>> We're deep into the Zone / Distributed Scheduler merges and stumbling onto
>>> an interesting problem.
>>> EC2 API has two important concepts that I don't see in OS API (1.0 or 1.1):
>>> - Reservation ID
>>> - Number of Instances to create
>>> Typical use case: "Create 1000 instances". The API allocates a Reservation
>>> ID and all the instances are created until this ID. The ID is immediately
>>> returned to the user who can later query on this ID to check status.
>>> From what I can see, the OS API only deals with single instance creation and
>>> returns the Instance ID from the call. Both of these need to change to
>>> support Reservation ID's and creating N instances. The value of the
>>> distributed scheduler comes from being able to create N instances load
>>> balanced across zones.
>>> Anyone have any suggestions how we can support this?
>>> Additionally, and less important at this stage, users at the summit
>>> expressed an interest in being able to specify instances with something
>>> richer than Flavors. We have some mockups in the current host-filter code
>>> for doing this using a primitive little JSON grammar. So, let's assume the
>>> Flavo

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Soren Hansen]

2011/5/23 Sandy Walsh :
> Additionally, and less important at this stage, users at the summit
> expressed an interest in being able to specify instances with something
> richer than Flavors. We have some mockups in the current host-filter code
> for doing this using a primitive little JSON grammar. So, let's assume the
> Flavor-like query would just be a string. Thoughts?

We'd lose the ability to rely exclusively on a fixed set of topics in
the message queue for doing scheduling. With a fixed set of relatively
simple flavours, each compute node could simply subscribe to the
topics representing the flavours for which it still has capacity. As
it fills up, it could unsubscribe from that topics representing the
larger flavours.

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Soren Hansen]

2011/5/23 Mark Washenberger :
> If I understand the features correctly, their implementation in nova seems 
> straightforward. However, I am still a little curious about their necessity. 
> For load balancing, what is the difference between a single request for N 
> instances and N requests for a single instance each?

Scheduling. If you ask for 10 instances in one call, they're scheduled
as a set. The entire call either fails or succeeds and all the
instances land in the same availability zone. 10 individual requests
will cause each of the instances to be scheduled individually (partial
failures and being scattered across multiple availability zones being
the major problems).

-- 
Soren Hansen        | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer    | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

Comments inline:

On May 23, 2011, at 8:59 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:

> Hi Jorge! Comments inline :)
> 
> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jorge Williams
>  wrote:
>> Hi Sandy,
>> My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating
>> multiple instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API.
> 
> Actually, I don't think we *could* do this without issuing a 2.0 API.
> The reason is because changing POST /servers to return a reservation
> ID instead of the instance ID would break existing clients, and
> therefore a new major API version would be needed.

Why?  Clients just see an ID.  I'm suggesting that for single instances, the 
instanceID == the reservationID.
In the API you query based on Some ID.

http://my.openstack-compute.net/v1.1/2233/servers/{Some unique ID}

> 
>> Same
>> thing for changing the way in which flavors work.  Both features can be
>> brought in as extensions though.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "changing the
> way flavours work". Could you elaborate a bit on that?

Sandy was suggesting we employ a method "richer than Flavors".  I'll let him 
elaborate.

> 
>> I should note that when creating single instances the instance id should
>> really be equivalent to a reservation id.  That is, the create should be
>> asynchronous and the instance id can be used to poll for changes.
> 
> Hmm, it's actually a bit different. In one case, you need to actually
> get an identifier for the instance from whatever database (zone db?)
> would be responsible for creating the instance. In the other case, you
> merely create a token/task that can then be queried for a status of
> the operation. In the former case, you unfortunately make the
> scheduler's work synchronous, since the instance identifier would need
> to be determined from the zone the instance would be created in. :(
> 

If we make the instance ID a unique ID -- which we probably should.   Why not 
also treat it as a reservation id and generate/assign it up front?

>> Because
>> of this, a user can create multiple instances in very rapid succession.
> 
> Not really the same as issuing a request to create 100 instances. Not
> only would the user interface implications be different, but you can
> also do all-or-nothing scheduling with a request for 100 instances
> versus 100 requests for a single instance. All-or-nothing allows a
> provider to pin a request to a specific SLA or policy. For example, if
> a client requests 100 instances be created with requirements X, Y, and
> Z, and you create 88 instances and 12 instances don't get created
> because there is no more available room that meets requirements X, Y,
> and Z, then you have failed to service the entire request...
> 


I totally understand this.  I'm just suggesting that since this is not is scope 
for 1.1 -- you should be able to launch individual instances as an alternative.

Also, keep in mind that the all-or-nothing requires a compensation when 
something fails.



>> Additionally, the changes-since feature in the API allows a user to
>> efficiently monitor the creation of multiple instances simultaneously.
> 
> Agreed, but I think that is tangential to the above discussion.
> 
> Cheers!
> jay
> 
>> -jOrGe W.
>> On May 23, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>> 
>> Hi everyone,
>> We're deep into the Zone / Distributed Scheduler merges and stumbling onto
>> an interesting problem.
>> EC2 API has two important concepts that I don't see in OS API (1.0 or 1.1):
>> - Reservation ID
>> - Number of Instances to create
>> Typical use case: "Create 1000 instances". The API allocates a Reservation
>> ID and all the instances are created until this ID. The ID is immediately
>> returned to the user who can later query on this ID to check status.
>> From what I can see, the OS API only deals with single instance creation and
>> returns the Instance ID from the call. Both of these need to change to
>> support Reservation ID's and creating N instances. The value of the
>> distributed scheduler comes from being able to create N instances load
>> balanced across zones.
>> Anyone have any suggestions how we can support this?
>> Additionally, and less important at this stage, users at the summit
>> expressed an interest in being able to specify instances with something
>> richer than Flavors. We have some mockups in the current host-filter code
>> for doing this using a primitive little JSON grammar. So, let's assume the
>> Flavor-like query would just be a string. Thoughts?
>> -S
>> 
>> 
>> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
>> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of
>> the
>> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless
>> otherwise
>> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of
>> Rackspace.
>> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is
>> prohibited.
>> If you receive this transmission in error, pl

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jay Pipes]

Hi Jorge! Comments inline :)

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Jorge Williams
 wrote:
> Hi Sandy,
> My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating
> multiple instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API.

Actually, I don't think we *could* do this without issuing a 2.0 API.
The reason is because changing POST /servers to return a reservation
ID instead of the instance ID would break existing clients, and
therefore a new major API version would be needed.

> Same
> thing for changing the way in which flavors work.  Both features can be
> brought in as extensions though.

Sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "changing the
way flavours work". Could you elaborate a bit on that?

> I should note that when creating single instances the instance id should
> really be equivalent to a reservation id.  That is, the create should be
> asynchronous and the instance id can be used to poll for changes.

Hmm, it's actually a bit different. In one case, you need to actually
get an identifier for the instance from whatever database (zone db?)
would be responsible for creating the instance. In the other case, you
merely create a token/task that can then be queried for a status of
the operation. In the former case, you unfortunately make the
scheduler's work synchronous, since the instance identifier would need
to be determined from the zone the instance would be created in. :(

> Because
> of this, a user can create multiple instances in very rapid succession.

Not really the same as issuing a request to create 100 instances. Not
only would the user interface implications be different, but you can
also do all-or-nothing scheduling with a request for 100 instances
versus 100 requests for a single instance. All-or-nothing allows a
provider to pin a request to a specific SLA or policy. For example, if
a client requests 100 instances be created with requirements X, Y, and
Z, and you create 88 instances and 12 instances don't get created
because there is no more available room that meets requirements X, Y,
and Z, then you have failed to service the entire request...

> Additionally, the changes-since feature in the API allows a user to
> efficiently monitor the creation of multiple instances simultaneously.

Agreed, but I think that is tangential to the above discussion.

Cheers!
jay

> -jOrGe W.
> On May 23, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
> We're deep into the Zone / Distributed Scheduler merges and stumbling onto
> an interesting problem.
> EC2 API has two important concepts that I don't see in OS API (1.0 or 1.1):
> - Reservation ID
> - Number of Instances to create
> Typical use case: "Create 1000 instances". The API allocates a Reservation
> ID and all the instances are created until this ID. The ID is immediately
> returned to the user who can later query on this ID to check status.
> From what I can see, the OS API only deals with single instance creation and
> returns the Instance ID from the call. Both of these need to change to
> support Reservation ID's and creating N instances. The value of the
> distributed scheduler comes from being able to create N instances load
> balanced across zones.
> Anyone have any suggestions how we can support this?
> Additionally, and less important at this stage, users at the summit
> expressed an interest in being able to specify instances with something
> richer than Flavors. We have some mockups in the current host-filter code
> for doing this using a primitive little JSON grammar. So, let's assume the
> Flavor-like query would just be a string. Thoughts?
> -S
>
>
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of
> the
> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless
> otherwise
> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of
> Rackspace.
> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is
> prohibited.
> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by
> e-mail
> at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
> Your cooperation is appreciated.
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to     : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Jorge Williams]

Hi Sandy,

My understanding (Correct me if i'm wrong here guys) is that creating multiple 
instances with a single call is not in scope for the 1.1 API.  Same thing for 
changing the way in which flavors work.  Both features can be brought in as 
extensions though.

I should note that when creating single instances the instance id should really 
be equivalent to a reservation id.  That is, the create should be asynchronous 
and the instance id can be used to poll for changes.  Because of this, a user 
can create multiple instances in very rapid succession.   Additionally, the 
changes-since feature in the API allows a user to efficiently monitor the 
creation of multiple instances simultaneously.

-jOrGe W.

On May 23, 2011, at 7:19 AM, Sandy Walsh wrote:

Hi everyone,

We're deep into the Zone / Distributed Scheduler merges and stumbling onto an 
interesting problem.

EC2 API has two important concepts that I don't see in OS API (1.0 or 1.1):
- Reservation ID
- Number of Instances to create

Typical use case: "Create 1000 instances". The API allocates a Reservation ID 
and all the instances are created until this ID. The ID is immediately returned 
to the user who can later query on this ID to check status.

>From what I can see, the OS API only deals with single instance creation and 
>returns the Instance ID from the call. Both of these need to change to support 
>Reservation ID's and creating N instances. The value of the distributed 
>scheduler comes from being able to create N instances load balanced across 
>zones.

Anyone have any suggestions how we can support this?

Additionally, and less important at this stage, users at the summit expressed 
an interest in being able to specify instances with something richer than 
Flavors. We have some mockups in the current host-filter code for doing this 
using a primitive little JSON grammar. So, let's assume the Flavor-like query 
would just be a string. Thoughts?

-S



Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is 
prohibited.
If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
e-mail
at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original 
message.
Your cooperation is appreciated.


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : 
openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Openstack] OpenStack API, Reservation ID's and Num Instances ...

[Mark Washenberger]

Sandy,

If I understand the features correctly, their implementation in nova seems 
straightforward. However, I am still a little curious about their necessity. 
For load balancing, what is the difference between a single request for N 
instances and N requests for a single instance each?

"Sandy Walsh"  said:

> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> Hi everyone,
> 
> We're deep into the Zone / Distributed Scheduler merges and stumbling onto an
> interesting problem.
> 
> EC2 API has two important concepts that I don't see in OS API (1.0 or 1.1):
> - Reservation ID
> - Number of Instances to create
> 
> Typical use case: "Create 1000 instances". The API allocates a Reservation ID 
> and
> all the instances are created until this ID. The ID is immediately returned 
> to the
> user who can later query on this ID to check status.
> 
>>From what I can see, the OS API only deals with single instance creation and
>> returns the Instance ID from the call. Both of these need to change to 
>> support
>> Reservation ID's and creating N instances. The value of the distributed 
>> scheduler
>> comes from being able to create N instances load balanced across zones.
> 
> Anyone have any suggestions how we can support this?
> 
> Additionally, and less important at this stage, users at the summit expressed 
> an
> interest in being able to specify instances with something richer than 
> Flavors. We
> have some mockups in the current host-filter code for doing this using a 
> primitive
> little JSON grammar. So, let's assume the Flavor-like query would just be a
> string. Thoughts?
> 
> -S
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached or
> embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential use of the
> individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and unless otherwise
> expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged information of Rackspace.
> Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material is
> prohibited.
> If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us immediately by 
> e-mail
> at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original message.
> Your cooperation is appreciated.
> 
> 



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp