Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Eric Fried]

Yeah, a couple of things here.

First, as you say, and as its champions have been very adamant about,
this isn't what placement was meant for.

Second, as I understand it, there's not actually going to be any way for
this information to reach the compute node through placement.  The
provider summaries in the allocation candidates always contain _all_ the
traits on the RP, not just the ones that were requested.  When I asked
about this in Denver, it was made clear that the only way to know which
traits were requested was via the flavor.

That being the case, we should make these configurables their own thing
in the flavor rather than trying to overload placement with them.

But I'm led to understand that Ironic can't see the flavor for some reason?

On 10/24/2017 01:52 AM, Alex Xu wrote:
> It sounds like Ironic use the Trait to configure the
> instance 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504952/5/specs/approved/config-template-traits.rst@95
> 
> The downside I can see is that the extra burden added to the placement.
> As the example, used in the spec:
> * CUSTOM_BM_CONFIG_BIOS_VMX_ON
> * CUSTOM_BM_CONFIG_BIOS_VMX_OFF
> 
> Actually, the placement only needs to find a host whose CPU have VMX
> feature. So it only one trait "HW_CPU_X86_VMX". But to use Trait to
> config the instance, we have to add each possible value as trait to the
> placement.
> 
> That isn't very terrible for the boolean value, but if there are 10
> values, or it is just an integer value.
> 
> That sounds like we put information isn't about the scheduling to the
> placement, and those information adds extra burden to the placement.
> 
> 2017-10-23 22:09 GMT+08:00 Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc
> <mailto:openst...@fried.cc>>:
> 
> We discussed this a little bit further in IRC [1].  We're all in
> agreement, but it's worth being precise on a couple of points:
> 
> * We're distinguishing between a "feature" and the "trait" that
> represents it in placement.  For the sake of this discussion, a
> "feature" can (maybe) be switched on or off, but a "trait" can either be
> present or absent on a RP.
> * It matters *who* can turn a feature on/off.
>   * If it can be done by virt at spawn time, then it makes sense to have
> the trait on the RP, and you can switch the feature on/off via a
> separate extra_spec.
>   * But if it's e.g. an admin action, and spawn has no control, then the
> trait needs to be *added* whenever the feature is *on*, and *removed*
> whenever the feature is *off*.
> 
> [1]
> 
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13
> 
> <http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13>
> 
> On 10/23/2017 08:15 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc
> > <mailto:openst...@fried.cc <mailto:openst...@fried.cc>>> wrote:
> >
> >     I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
> >
> >     * A resource provider should be marked with a trait if that
> feature
> >       * Can be turned on or off (whether it's currently on or not); or
> >       * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
> >
> >
> > No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider stops providing a
> > capability, then the existing related trait should just be removed,
> > that's it.
> > If you see a trait, that's just means that the related capability for
> > the Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.
> >
> > MHO.
> >
> > -Sylvain
> >
> >  
> >
> >     * A consumer wanting that feature present (doesn't matter
> whether it's
> >     on or off) should specify it as a required *trait*.
> >     * A consumer wanting that feature present and turned on should
> >       * Specify it as a required trait; AND
> >       * Indicate that it be turned on via some other mechanism (e.g. a
> >     separate extra_spec).
> >
> >     I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's) needs, but also
> Jay's drive
> >     for placement purity.
> >
> >     Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >     Eric
> >
> >     On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
> >     >  
> >     >
> >     >  
> >     >
>     >     &

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Alex Xu]

It sounds like Ironic use the Trait to configure the instance
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504952/5/specs/approved/config-template-traits.rst@95

The downside I can see is that the extra burden added to the placement.
As the example, used in the spec:
* CUSTOM_BM_CONFIG_BIOS_VMX_ON
* CUSTOM_BM_CONFIG_BIOS_VMX_OFF

Actually, the placement only needs to find a host whose CPU have VMX
feature. So it only one trait "HW_CPU_X86_VMX". But to use Trait to config
the instance, we have to add each possible value as trait to the placement.

That isn't very terrible for the boolean value, but if there are 10 values,
or it is just an integer value.

That sounds like we put information isn't about the scheduling to the
placement, and those information adds extra burden to the placement.

2017-10-23 22:09 GMT+08:00 Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc>:

> We discussed this a little bit further in IRC [1].  We're all in
> agreement, but it's worth being precise on a couple of points:
>
> * We're distinguishing between a "feature" and the "trait" that
> represents it in placement.  For the sake of this discussion, a
> "feature" can (maybe) be switched on or off, but a "trait" can either be
> present or absent on a RP.
> * It matters *who* can turn a feature on/off.
>   * If it can be done by virt at spawn time, then it makes sense to have
> the trait on the RP, and you can switch the feature on/off via a
> separate extra_spec.
>   * But if it's e.g. an admin action, and spawn has no control, then the
> trait needs to be *added* whenever the feature is *on*, and *removed*
> whenever the feature is *off*.
>
> [1]
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/
> %23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13
>
> On 10/23/2017 08:15 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc
> > <mailto:openst...@fried.cc>> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
> >
> > * A resource provider should be marked with a trait if that feature
> >   * Can be turned on or off (whether it's currently on or not); or
> >   * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
> >
> >
> > No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider stops providing a
> > capability, then the existing related trait should just be removed,
> > that's it.
> > If you see a trait, that's just means that the related capability for
> > the Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.
> >
> > MHO.
> >
> > -Sylvain
> >
> >
> >
> > * A consumer wanting that feature present (doesn't matter whether
> it's
> > on or off) should specify it as a required *trait*.
> > * A consumer wanting that feature present and turned on should
> >   * Specify it as a required trait; AND
> >   * Indicate that it be turned on via some other mechanism (e.g. a
> > separate extra_spec).
> >
> > I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's) needs, but also Jay's
> drive
> > for placement purity.
> >
> > Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> > On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
> >     >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>]
> > > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
> > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with
> any plan
> > > that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
> > > videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow
> I'm
> > > not able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of
> the day.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I did bring up at the
> > ptg that
> > > we wanted to standardizes tratis for “verified boot” /*
> > >
> > > */that included a trait for uefi secure boot enabled and to
> > indicated a
> > > hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot guard or similar/*
> > >
> > > */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag nova compute hosts with
> t

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Dmitry Tantsur]

Your suggestions requires transparent passing of extra_specs to ironic,
which is something the nova team has objections for quite some time.

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc> wrote:

> We discussed this a little bit further in IRC [1].  We're all in
> agreement, but it's worth being precise on a couple of points:
>
> * We're distinguishing between a "feature" and the "trait" that
> represents it in placement.  For the sake of this discussion, a
> "feature" can (maybe) be switched on or off, but a "trait" can either be
> present or absent on a RP.
> * It matters *who* can turn a feature on/off.
>   * If it can be done by virt at spawn time, then it makes sense to have
> the trait on the RP, and you can switch the feature on/off via a
> separate extra_spec.
>   * But if it's e.g. an admin action, and spawn has no control, then the
> trait needs to be *added* whenever the feature is *on*, and *removed*
> whenever the feature is *off*.
>
> [1]
> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/
> %23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13
>
> On 10/23/2017 08:15 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc
> > <mailto:openst...@fried.cc>> wrote:
> >
> > I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
> >
> > * A resource provider should be marked with a trait if that feature
> >   * Can be turned on or off (whether it's currently on or not); or
> >   * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
> >
> >
> > No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider stops providing a
> > capability, then the existing related trait should just be removed,
> > that's it.
> > If you see a trait, that's just means that the related capability for
> > the Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.
> >
> > MHO.
> >
> > -Sylvain
> >
> >
> >
> > * A consumer wanting that feature present (doesn't matter whether
> it's
> > on or off) should specify it as a required *trait*.
> > * A consumer wanting that feature present and turned on should
> >   * Specify it as a required trait; AND
> >   * Indicate that it be turned on via some other mechanism (e.g. a
> > separate extra_spec).
> >
> > I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's) needs, but also Jay's
> drive
> > for placement purity.
> >
> > Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Eric
> >
> > On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>]
> > > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
> > > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> > > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with
> any plan
> > > that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
> > > videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow
> I'm
> > > not able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of
> the day.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I did bring up at the
> > ptg that
> > > we wanted to standardizes tratis for “verified boot” /*
> > >
> > > */that included a trait for uefi secure boot enabled and to
> > indicated a
> > > hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot guard or similar/*
> > >
> > > */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag nova compute hosts with
> those
> > > new traits so we could require that vms that request/*
> > >
> > > */a host with uefi secure boot enabled and a hardware root of
> > trust are
> > > scheduled only to those nodes. /*
> > >
> > > */ /*
> > >
> > > */There are many other examples that effect both vms and bare
> > metal such
> > > as, ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die, /*
> > >
> > > */l3 cache code and data prioritization, vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper
> > > threading, power states … all of

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Eric Fried]

We discussed this a little bit further in IRC [1].  We're all in
agreement, but it's worth being precise on a couple of points:

* We're distinguishing between a "feature" and the "trait" that
represents it in placement.  For the sake of this discussion, a
"feature" can (maybe) be switched on or off, but a "trait" can either be
present or absent on a RP.
* It matters *who* can turn a feature on/off.
  * If it can be done by virt at spawn time, then it makes sense to have
the trait on the RP, and you can switch the feature on/off via a
separate extra_spec.
  * But if it's e.g. an admin action, and spawn has no control, then the
trait needs to be *added* whenever the feature is *on*, and *removed*
whenever the feature is *off*.

[1]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-nova/%23openstack-nova.2017-10-23.log.html#t2017-10-23T13:12:13

On 10/23/2017 08:15 AM, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc
> <mailto:openst...@fried.cc>> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
> 
> * A resource provider should be marked with a trait if that feature
>   * Can be turned on or off (whether it's currently on or not); or
>   * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
> 
> 
> No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider stops providing a
> capability, then the existing related trait should just be removed,
> that's it.
> If you see a trait, that's just means that the related capability for
> the Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.
> 
> MHO.
> 
> -Sylvain
> 
>  
> 
> * A consumer wanting that feature present (doesn't matter whether it's
> on or off) should specify it as a required *trait*.
> * A consumer wanting that feature present and turned on should
>   * Specify it as a required trait; AND
>   * Indicate that it be turned on via some other mechanism (e.g. a
> separate extra_spec).
> 
> I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's) needs, but also Jay's drive
> for placement purity.
> 
> Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
> 
> Thanks,
> Eric
> 
> On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> > *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>]
> > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
> > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List
> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> <mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
> > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits
> >
> >  
> >
> > Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan
> > that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
> > videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm
> > not able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of the 
> day.
> >
> >  
> >
> > */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I did bring up at the
> ptg that
> > we wanted to standardizes tratis for “verified boot” /*
> >
> > */that included a trait for uefi secure boot enabled and to
> indicated a
> > hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot guard or similar/*
> >
> > */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag nova compute hosts with those
> > new traits so we could require that vms that request/*
> >
> > */a host with uefi secure boot enabled and a hardware root of
> trust are
> > scheduled only to those nodes. /*
> >
> > */ /*
> >
> > */There are many other examples that effect both vms and bare
> metal such
> > as, ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die, /*
> >
> > */l3 cache code and data prioritization, vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper
> > threading, power states … all of these feature may be present on the
> > platform/*
> >
> > */but I also need to know if they are turned on. Ruling out state in
> > traits means all of this logic will eventually get pushed to scheduler
> > filters/*
> >
> > */which will be suboptimal long term as more state is tracked.
> Software
> > defined infrastructure may be the future but hardware defined
> software/*
> >
> > */is sadly the present…/*
> >
> > */ /*
> >
> > */I do however think there should be a sperateion between asking for a
> > host that provides x with a trai

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Sylvain Bauza]

On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Eric Fried <openst...@fried.cc> wrote:

> I agree with Sean.  In general terms:
>
> * A resource provider should be marked with a trait if that feature
>   * Can be turned on or off (whether it's currently on or not); or
>   * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
>

No, traits are not boolean. If a resource provider stops providing a
capability, then the existing related trait should just be removed, that's
it.
If you see a trait, that's just means that the related capability for the
Resource Provider is supported, that's it too.

MHO.

-Sylvain



> * A consumer wanting that feature present (doesn't matter whether it's
> on or off) should specify it as a required *trait*.
> * A consumer wanting that feature present and turned on should
>   * Specify it as a required trait; AND
>   * Indicate that it be turned on via some other mechanism (e.g. a
> separate extra_spec).
>
> I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's) needs, but also Jay's drive
> for placement purity.
>
> Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.
>
> Thanks,
> Eric
>
> On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> > *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
> > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.
> openstack.org>
> > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits
> >
> >
> >
> > Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan
> > that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
> > videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm
> > not able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of the
> day.
> >
> >
> >
> > */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I did bring up at the ptg that
> > we wanted to standardizes tratis for “verified boot” /*
> >
> > */that included a trait for uefi secure boot enabled and to indicated a
> > hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot guard or similar/*
> >
> > */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag nova compute hosts with those
> > new traits so we could require that vms that request/*
> >
> > */a host with uefi secure boot enabled and a hardware root of trust are
> > scheduled only to those nodes. /*
> >
> > */ /*
> >
> > */There are many other examples that effect both vms and bare metal such
> > as, ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die, /*
> >
> > */l3 cache code and data prioritization, vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper
> > threading, power states … all of these feature may be present on the
> > platform/*
> >
> > */but I also need to know if they are turned on. Ruling out state in
> > traits means all of this logic will eventually get pushed to scheduler
> > filters/*
> >
> > */which will be suboptimal long term as more state is tracked. Software
> > defined infrastructure may be the future but hardware defined software/*
> >
> > */is sadly the present…/*
> >
> > */ /*
> >
> > */I do however think there should be a sperateion between asking for a
> > host that provides x with a trait and  asking for x to be configure via/*
> >
> > */A trait. The trait secure_boot_enabled should never result in the
> > feature being enabled It should just find a host with it on. If you
> want/*
> >
> > */To request it to be turned on you would request a host with
> > secure_boot_capable as a trait and have a flavor extra spec or image
> > property to request/*
> >
> > */Ironic to enabled it.  these are two very different request and should
> > not be treated the same. /*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Lemme know!
> >
> > -jay
> >
> >
> >
> > On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur" <dtant...@redhat.com
> > <mailto:dtant...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jay!
> >
> > I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the
> > problem from purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the
> > same way in bare metal, at least not if we want to provide the same
> > user experience.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
> > <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job.
> > Comments inline.
> >
> > On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Eric Fried]

I agree with Sean.  In general terms:

* A resource provider should be marked with a trait if that feature
  * Can be turned on or off (whether it's currently on or not); or
  * Is always on and can't ever be turned off.
* A consumer wanting that feature present (doesn't matter whether it's
on or off) should specify it as a required *trait*.
* A consumer wanting that feature present and turned on should
  * Specify it as a required trait; AND
  * Indicate that it be turned on via some other mechanism (e.g. a
separate extra_spec).

I believe this satisfies Dmitry's (Ironic's) needs, but also Jay's drive
for placement purity.

Please invite me to the hangout or whatever.

Thanks,
Eric

On 10/23/2017 07:22 AM, Mooney, Sean K wrote:
>  
> 
>  
> 
> *From:*Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits
> 
>  
> 
> Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan
> that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
> videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm
> not able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of the day.
> 
>  
> 
> */[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I did bring up at the ptg that
> we wanted to standardizes tratis for “verified boot” /*
> 
> */that included a trait for uefi secure boot enabled and to indicated a
> hardware root of trust, e.g. intel boot guard or similar/*
> 
> */we distinctly wanted to be able to tag nova compute hosts with those
> new traits so we could require that vms that request/*
> 
> */a host with uefi secure boot enabled and a hardware root of trust are
> scheduled only to those nodes. /*
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */There are many other examples that effect both vms and bare metal such
> as, ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die, /*
> 
> */l3 cache code and data prioritization, vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper
> threading, power states … all of these feature may be present on the
> platform/*
> 
> */but I also need to know if they are turned on. Ruling out state in
> traits means all of this logic will eventually get pushed to scheduler
> filters/*
> 
> */which will be suboptimal long term as more state is tracked. Software
> defined infrastructure may be the future but hardware defined software/*
> 
> */is sadly the present…/*
> 
> */ /*
> 
> */I do however think there should be a sperateion between asking for a
> host that provides x with a trait and  asking for x to be configure via/*
> 
> */A trait. The trait secure_boot_enabled should never result in the
> feature being enabled It should just find a host with it on. If you want/*
> 
> */To request it to be turned on you would request a host with
> secure_boot_capable as a trait and have a flavor extra spec or image
> property to request/*
> 
> */Ironic to enabled it.  these are two very different request and should
> not be treated the same. /*
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Lemme know!
> 
> -jay
> 
>  
> 
> On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur" <dtant...@redhat.com
> <mailto:dtant...@redhat.com>> wrote:
> 
> Hi Jay!
> 
> I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the
> problem from purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the
> same way in bare metal, at least not if we want to provide the same
> user experience.
> 
>  
> 
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com
> <mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job.
> Comments inline.
> 
> On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so
> here we go :)
> 
> I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
> 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the
> node is
> doing UEFI boot")
> 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do
> (e.g. "the node can
> boot in UEFI mode")
> 
> 
> There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state
> information. Traits are not for state information. Traits are
> only for communicating capabilities of a resource provider
> (baremetal node).
> 
>  
> 
> These are not different, that's what I'm talking about here. No
> users care about the difference between "this n

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Mooney, Sean K]

From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2017 12:20 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan that 
uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or videoconference to 
discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm not able to do a hangout but 
I can do one on Wednesday any time of the day.

[Mooney, Sean K] on the uefi boot topic I did bring up at the ptg that we 
wanted to standardizes tratis for “verified boot”
that included a trait for uefi secure boot enabled and to indicated a hardware 
root of trust, e.g. intel boot guard or similar
we distinctly wanted to be able to tag nova compute hosts with those new traits 
so we could require that vms that request
a host with uefi secure boot enabled and a hardware root of trust are scheduled 
only to those nodes.

There are many other examples that effect both vms and bare metal such as, 
ecc/interleaved memory, cluster on die,
l3 cache code and data prioritization, vt-d/vt-c, HPET, Hyper threading, power 
states … all of these feature may be present on the platform
but I also need to know if they are turned on. Ruling out state in traits means 
all of this logic will eventually get pushed to scheduler filters
which will be suboptimal long term as more state is tracked. Software defined 
infrastructure may be the future but hardware defined software
is sadly the present…

I do however think there should be a sperateion between asking for a host that 
provides x with a trait and  asking for x to be configure via
A trait. The trait secure_boot_enabled should never result in the feature being 
enabled It should just find a host with it on. If you want
To request it to be turned on you would request a host with secure_boot_capable 
as a trait and have a flavor extra spec or image property to request
Ironic to enabled it.  these are two very different request and should not be 
treated the same.


Lemme know!
-jay

On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur" 
<dtant...@redhat.com<mailto:dtant...@redhat.com>> wrote:
Hi Jay!
I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the problem from 
purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the same way in bare metal, 
at least not if we want to provide the same user experience.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes 
<jaypi...@gmail.com<mailto:jaypi...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job. Comments inline.

On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
Hi all,

I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)

I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
doing UEFI boot")
2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the node can
boot in UEFI mode")

There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state information. Traits are 
not for state information. Traits are only for communicating capabilities of a 
resource provider (baremetal node).

These are not different, that's what I'm talking about here. No users care 
about the difference between "this node was put in UEFI mode by an operator in 
advance", "this node was put in UEFI mode by an ironic driver on demand" and 
"this node is always in UEFI mode, because it's AARCH64 and it does not have 
BIOS". These situation produce the same result (the node is booted in UEFI 
mode), and thus it's up to ironic to hide this difference.

My suggestion with traits is one way to do it, I'm not sure what you suggest 
though.


For example, let's say we add the following to the os-traits library [1]

* STORAGE_RAID_0
* STORAGE_RAID_1
* STORAGE_RAID_5
* STORAGE_RAID_6
* STORAGE_RAID_10

The Ironic administrator would add all RAID-related traits to the baremetal 
nodes that had the *capability* of supporting that particular RAID setup [2]

When provisioned, the baremetal node would either have RAID configured in a 
certain level or not configured at all.

A very important note: the Placement API and Nova scheduler (or future Ironic 
scheduler) doesn't care about this. At all. I know it sounds like I'm being 
callous, but I'm not. Placement and scheduling doesn't care about the state of 
things. It only cares about the capabilities of target destinations. That's it.

Yes, because VMs always start with a clean state, and hypervisor is there to 
ensure that. We don't have this luxury in ironic :) E.g. our SNMP driver is not 
even aware of boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS configuration), which does not mean 
that a node using it cannot be in UEFI mode (have a RAID or BIOS 
pre-configured, etc, etc).


This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor that
requests UEFI boot

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Dmitry Tantsur]

Actually, I was suggesting the same to John the other day :) I can throw a
doodle later today to pick the time.

On 10/23/2017 01:19 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan that
> uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or videoconference to
> discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm not able to do a hangout 
> but
> I can do one on Wednesday any time of the day.
>
> Lemme know!
> -jay
>
> On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur"  > wrote:
>
> Hi Jay!
>
> I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the problem 
> from
> purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the same way in bare
> metal, at least not if we want to provide the same user experience.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes  > wrote:
>
> Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job. Comments 
> inline.
>
> On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here 
> we
> go :)
>
> I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
> 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
> doing UEFI boot")
> 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g.
> "the node can
> boot in UEFI mode")
>
>
> There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state information.
> Traits are not for state information. Traits are only for 
> communicating
> capabilities of a resource provider (baremetal node).
>
>
> These are not different, that's what I'm talking about here. No users care
> about the difference between "this node was put in UEFI mode by an 
> operator
> in advance", "this node was put in UEFI mode by an ironic driver on 
> demand"
> and "this node is always in UEFI mode, because it's AARCH64 and it does 
> not
> have BIOS". These situation produce the same result (the node is booted in
> UEFI mode), and thus it's up to ironic to hide this difference.
>
> My suggestion with traits is one way to do it, I'm not sure what you 
> suggest
> though.
>
>
> For example, let's say we add the following to the os-traits library 
> [1]
>
> * STORAGE_RAID_0
> * STORAGE_RAID_1
> * STORAGE_RAID_5
> * STORAGE_RAID_6
> * STORAGE_RAID_10
>
> The Ironic administrator would add all RAID-related traits to the
> baremetal nodes that had the *capability* of supporting that 
> particular
> RAID setup [2]
>
> When provisioned, the baremetal node would either have RAID configured
> in a certain level or not configured at all.
>
>
> A very important note: the Placement API and Nova scheduler (or future
> Ironic scheduler) doesn't care about this. At all. I know it sounds 
> like
> I'm being callous, but I'm not. Placement and scheduling doesn't care
> about the state of things. It only cares about the capabilities of
> target destinations. That's it.
>
>
> Yes, because VMs always start with a clean state, and hypervisor is there 
> to
> ensure that. We don't have this luxury in ironic :) E.g. our SNMP driver 
> is
> not even aware of boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS configuration), which does
> not mean that a node using it cannot be in UEFI mode (have a RAID or BIOS
> pre-configured, etc, etc).
>
>
> This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a
> flavor that
> requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that
> are already in
> UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
>
>
> No :) It will only match nodes that have the UEFI capability. The set 
> of
> providers that have the ability to be booted via UEFI is *always* a
> superset of the set of providers that *have been booted via UEFI*.
> Placement and scheduling decisions only care about that superset -- 
> the
> providers with a particular capability.
>
>
> Well, no, it will. Again, you're purely basing on the VM idea, where a VM 
> is
> always *put* in UEFI mode, no matter how the hypervisor looks like. It is
> simply not the case for us. You have to care what state the node is, 
> because
> many drivers cannot change this state.
>
>
> This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've 
> been
> thinking
> about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it
> will match the
> nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes 
> on
> which we
> can 

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Jay Pipes]

Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan
that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm not
able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of the day.

Lemme know!
-jay

On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur"  wrote:

> Hi Jay!
>
> I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the problem
> from purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the same way in bare
> metal, at least not if we want to provide the same user experience.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes  wrote:
>
>> Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job. Comments
>> inline.
>>
>> On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)
>>>
>>> I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
>>> 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
>>> doing UEFI boot")
>>> 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the
>>> node can
>>> boot in UEFI mode")
>>>
>>
>> There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state information.
>> Traits are not for state information. Traits are only for communicating
>> capabilities of a resource provider (baremetal node).
>>
>
> These are not different, that's what I'm talking about here. No users care
> about the difference between "this node was put in UEFI mode by an operator
> in advance", "this node was put in UEFI mode by an ironic driver on demand"
> and "this node is always in UEFI mode, because it's AARCH64 and it does not
> have BIOS". These situation produce the same result (the node is booted in
> UEFI mode), and thus it's up to ironic to hide this difference.
>
> My suggestion with traits is one way to do it, I'm not sure what you
> suggest though.
>
>
>>
>> For example, let's say we add the following to the os-traits library [1]
>>
>> * STORAGE_RAID_0
>> * STORAGE_RAID_1
>> * STORAGE_RAID_5
>> * STORAGE_RAID_6
>> * STORAGE_RAID_10
>>
>> The Ironic administrator would add all RAID-related traits to the
>> baremetal nodes that had the *capability* of supporting that particular
>> RAID setup [2]
>>
>> When provisioned, the baremetal node would either have RAID configured in
>> a certain level or not configured at all.
>>
>
>> A very important note: the Placement API and Nova scheduler (or future
>> Ironic scheduler) doesn't care about this. At all. I know it sounds like
>> I'm being callous, but I'm not. Placement and scheduling doesn't care about
>> the state of things. It only cares about the capabilities of target
>> destinations. That's it.
>>
>
> Yes, because VMs always start with a clean state, and hypervisor is there
> to ensure that. We don't have this luxury in ironic :) E.g. our SNMP driver
> is not even aware of boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS configuration), which
> does not mean that a node using it cannot be in UEFI mode (have a RAID or
> BIOS pre-configured, etc, etc).
>
>
>>
>> This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor
>>> that
>>> requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are
>>> already in
>>> UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
>>>
>>
>> No :) It will only match nodes that have the UEFI capability. The set of
>> providers that have the ability to be booted via UEFI is *always* a
>> superset of the set of providers that *have been booted via UEFI*.
>> Placement and scheduling decisions only care about that superset -- the
>> providers with a particular capability.
>>
>
> Well, no, it will. Again, you're purely basing on the VM idea, where a VM
> is always *put* in UEFI mode, no matter how the hypervisor looks like. It
> is simply not the case for us. You have to care what state the node is,
> because many drivers cannot change this state.
>
>
>>
>> This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been
>>> thinking
>>> about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will
>>> match the
>>> nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on
>>> which we
>>> can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be
>>> treated in a
>>> similar way.
>>>
>>> This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
>>> 1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is
>>> in UEFI
>>> mode"),
>>> 2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
>>>2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
>>>2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")
>>>
>>
>> You're correct that both pieces of information are important. However,
>> only the "can do about hardware" part is relevant to Placement and Nova.
>>
>> For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a
>>> node.
>>>
>>
>> I would *strongly* advise against 

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Dmitry Tantsur]

Hi Jay!

I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the problem from
purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the same way in bare
metal, at least not if we want to provide the same user experience.

On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes  wrote:

> Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job. Comments
> inline.
>
> On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)
>>
>> I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
>> 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
>> doing UEFI boot")
>> 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the
>> node can
>> boot in UEFI mode")
>>
>
> There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state information.
> Traits are not for state information. Traits are only for communicating
> capabilities of a resource provider (baremetal node).
>

These are not different, that's what I'm talking about here. No users care
about the difference between "this node was put in UEFI mode by an operator
in advance", "this node was put in UEFI mode by an ironic driver on demand"
and "this node is always in UEFI mode, because it's AARCH64 and it does not
have BIOS". These situation produce the same result (the node is booted in
UEFI mode), and thus it's up to ironic to hide this difference.

My suggestion with traits is one way to do it, I'm not sure what you
suggest though.


>
> For example, let's say we add the following to the os-traits library [1]
>
> * STORAGE_RAID_0
> * STORAGE_RAID_1
> * STORAGE_RAID_5
> * STORAGE_RAID_6
> * STORAGE_RAID_10
>
> The Ironic administrator would add all RAID-related traits to the
> baremetal nodes that had the *capability* of supporting that particular
> RAID setup [2]
>
> When provisioned, the baremetal node would either have RAID configured in
> a certain level or not configured at all.
>

> A very important note: the Placement API and Nova scheduler (or future
> Ironic scheduler) doesn't care about this. At all. I know it sounds like
> I'm being callous, but I'm not. Placement and scheduling doesn't care about
> the state of things. It only cares about the capabilities of target
> destinations. That's it.
>

Yes, because VMs always start with a clean state, and hypervisor is there
to ensure that. We don't have this luxury in ironic :) E.g. our SNMP driver
is not even aware of boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS configuration), which
does not mean that a node using it cannot be in UEFI mode (have a RAID or
BIOS pre-configured, etc, etc).


>
> This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor
>> that
>> requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are
>> already in
>> UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
>>
>
> No :) It will only match nodes that have the UEFI capability. The set of
> providers that have the ability to be booted via UEFI is *always* a
> superset of the set of providers that *have been booted via UEFI*.
> Placement and scheduling decisions only care about that superset -- the
> providers with a particular capability.
>

Well, no, it will. Again, you're purely basing on the VM idea, where a VM
is always *put* in UEFI mode, no matter how the hypervisor looks like. It
is simply not the case for us. You have to care what state the node is,
because many drivers cannot change this state.


>
> This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been
>> thinking
>> about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will
>> match the
>> nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on
>> which we
>> can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be treated
>> in a
>> similar way.
>>
>> This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
>> 1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is in
>> UEFI
>> mode"),
>> 2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
>>2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
>>2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")
>>
>
> You're correct that both pieces of information are important. However,
> only the "can do about hardware" part is relevant to Placement and Nova.
>
> For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a
>> node.
>>
>
> I would *strongly* advise against this. Traits are not for state
> information.
>
> Instead, consider having a DB (or JSON) schema that lists state
> information in fields that are explicitly for that state information.
>
> For example, a schema that looks like this:
>
> {
>   "boot": {
> "mode": ,
> "params": 
>   },
>   "disk": {
> "raid": {
>   "level": ,
>   "controller": ,
>   "driver": ,
>   "params": 
> },  ...
>   },
>   "network": {
> ...
>   }
> }
>
> etc, etc.
>
> Don't use trait strings to represent 

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Jay Pipes]

Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job. Comments inline.

On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:

Hi all,

I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)

I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
doing UEFI boot")
2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the node can
boot in UEFI mode")


There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state information. 
Traits are not for state information. Traits are only for communicating 
capabilities of a resource provider (baremetal node).


For example, let's say we add the following to the os-traits library [1]

* STORAGE_RAID_0
* STORAGE_RAID_1
* STORAGE_RAID_5
* STORAGE_RAID_6
* STORAGE_RAID_10

The Ironic administrator would add all RAID-related traits to the 
baremetal nodes that had the *capability* of supporting that particular 
RAID setup [2]


When provisioned, the baremetal node would either have RAID configured 
in a certain level or not configured at all.


A very important note: the Placement API and Nova scheduler (or future 
Ironic scheduler) doesn't care about this. At all. I know it sounds like 
I'm being callous, but I'm not. Placement and scheduling doesn't care 
about the state of things. It only cares about the capabilities of 
target destinations. That's it.



This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor that
requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are already in
UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.


No :) It will only match nodes that have the UEFI capability. The set of 
providers that have the ability to be booted via UEFI is *always* a 
superset of the set of providers that *have been booted via UEFI*. 
Placement and scheduling decisions only care about that superset -- the 
providers with a particular capability.



This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been thinking
about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will match the
nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on which we
can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be treated in a
similar way.

This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI
mode"),
2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
   2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
   2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")


You're correct that both pieces of information are important. However, 
only the "can do about hardware" part is relevant to Placement and Nova.



For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a node.


I would *strongly* advise against this. Traits are not for state 
information.


Instead, consider having a DB (or JSON) schema that lists state 
information in fields that are explicitly for that state information.


For example, a schema that looks like this:

{
  "boot": {
"mode": ,
"params": 
  },
  "disk": {
"raid": {
  "level": ,
  "controller": ,
  "driver": ,
  "params": 
},  ...
  },
  "network": {
...
  }
}

etc, etc.

Don't use trait strings to represent state information.

Best,
-jay


Case #2 is more interesting. We have two options, I think:

a) Operators still set traits on nodes, drivers are simply validating them. E.g.
an operators sets CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID interface checks if it is
possible to do. The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
available it can be a lot of manual work.

b) Drivers report the traits, and they get somehow added to the traits provided
by an operator. Technically, there are sub-cases again:
   b.1) The new traits API returns a union of operator-provided and
driver-provided traits
   b.2) The new traits API returns only operator-provided traits; 
driver-provided
traits are returned e.g. via a new field (node.driver_traits). Then nova will
have to merge the lists itself.

My personal favorite is the last option: I'd like a clear distinction between
different "sources" of traits, but I'd also like to reduce manual work for
operators.

A valid counter-argument is: what if an operator wants to override a
driver-provided trait? E.g. a node can do RAID 5, but I don't want this
particular node to do it for any reason. I'm not sure if it's a valid case, and
what to do about it.

Let me know what you think.

Dmitry


[1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/
[2] Based on how many attached disks the node had, the presence and 
abilities of a hardware RAID controller, etc


__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Dmitry Tantsur]

Hi!

Answering to both Eric and John inline.

On 10/16/2017 07:26 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
> On 16 October 2017 at 17:55, Eric Fried  > wrote:
>
> * Adding references to the specs: ironic side [1]; nova side [2] (which
> just merged).
>
> * Since Jay is on vacation, I'll tentatively note his vote by proxy [3]
> that ironic should be the source of truth - i.e. option (a).  I think
> the upshot is that it's easier for Ironic to track and resolve conflicts
> than for the virt driver to do so.
>
>
> As I see it, all of these options have Ironic as the source of truth for Nova.
>
> Driver here is about the Ironic drivers, not Nova virt driver.

This is correct, sorry for confusion.

>
>   > The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
>
> > available it can be a lot of manual work.
>
> * How does option (b) help with this?
>
>
> The operator defines the configuration templates. The driver could then report
> traits for any configuration templates that it knows it a given node can 
> support.

Yeah, this avoids explicit

  openstack baremetal node trait set  CUSTOM_RAID_5

for many nodes.

>
> But I suspect a node would have to boot up an image to check if a given set of
> RAID or BIOS parameters are valid. Is that correct? I am sure there are way to
> cache things that could help somewhat.

BIOS - no. RAID - well, some drivers do RAID in-band, but I think we can only
leave driver-side validation here to simplify things.

>
> * I suggested a way to maintain the "source" of a trait (operator,
> inspector, etc.) [4] which would help with resolving conflicts.
> However, I agree it would be better to avoid this extra complexity if
> possible.
>
>
> That is basically (b.2).
>
>
> * This is slightly off topic, but it's related and will eventually need
> to be considered: How are you going to know whether a
> UEFI-capable-but-not-enabled node should have its UEFI mode turned on?
> Are you going to parse the traits specified in the flavor?  (This might
> work for Ironic, but will be tough in the general case.)

We have a nova spec approved for passing matches traits to ironic. Ironic then
will use them to figure out. Currently it works the same way with capabilities.

>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/504531 
> 
>
> Also the other ironic spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504952
>
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/507052 
> 
> [3]
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507052/4/specs/queens/approved/ironic-traits.rst@88
> 
> 
> [4]
> 
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504531/4/specs/approved/node-traits.rst@196
> 
> 
>
> On 10/16/2017 11:24 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>  > Hi all,
>  >
>  > I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go 
> :)
>  >
>  > I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
>  > 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
>  > doing UEFI boot")
>  > 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the
> node can
>  > boot in UEFI mode")
>  >
>  > This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a 
> flavor
> that
>  > requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are
> already in
>  > UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
>  >
>  > This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been 
> thinking
>  > about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will
> match the
>  > nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on 
> which we
>  > can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be 
> treated
> in a
>  > similar way.
>  >
>  > This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
>  > 1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is 
> in
> UEFI
>  > mode"),
>  > 2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
>  >   2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
>  >   2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")
>  >
>  > For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for 
> a node.
>  > Case #2 is more interesting. We have two options, I think:
>  >
>  > a) Operators still set traits on nodes, drivers are simply validating
> them. E.g.
>  > an operators sets CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID interface checks 
> if
> it is
>  > possible to do. The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy 
> templates
>  > available it can be a lot of manual 

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[John Garbutt]

On 16 October 2017 at 17:55, Eric Fried  wrote:

> * Adding references to the specs: ironic side [1]; nova side [2] (which
> just merged).
>
> * Since Jay is on vacation, I'll tentatively note his vote by proxy [3]
> that ironic should be the source of truth - i.e. option (a).  I think
> the upshot is that it's easier for Ironic to track and resolve conflicts
> than for the virt driver to do so.
>

As I see it, all of these options have Ironic as the source of truth for
Nova.

Driver here is about the Ironic drivers, not Nova virt driver.

 > The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates

> > available it can be a lot of manual work.
>
> * How does option (b) help with this?
>

The operator defines the configuration templates. The driver could then
report traits for any configuration templates that it knows it a given node
can support.

But I suspect a node would have to boot up an image to check if a given set
of RAID or BIOS parameters are valid. Is that correct? I am sure there are
way to cache things that could help somewhat.


> * I suggested a way to maintain the "source" of a trait (operator,
> inspector, etc.) [4] which would help with resolving conflicts.
> However, I agree it would be better to avoid this extra complexity if
> possible.
>

That is basically (b.2).


>
> * This is slightly off topic, but it's related and will eventually need
> to be considered: How are you going to know whether a
> UEFI-capable-but-not-enabled node should have its UEFI mode turned on?
> Are you going to parse the traits specified in the flavor?  (This might
> work for Ironic, but will be tough in the general case.)
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/504531


Also the other ironic spec: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504952


> [2] https://review.openstack.org/507052
> [3]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507052/4/specs/queens/appro
> ved/ironic-traits.rst@88
> [4]
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504531/4/specs/approved/nod
> e-traits.rst@196
>
> On 10/16/2017 11:24 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)
> >
> > I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
> > 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
> > doing UEFI boot")
> > 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the
> node can
> > boot in UEFI mode")
> >
> > This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a
> flavor that
> > requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are
> already in
> > UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
> >
> > This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been
> thinking
> > about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will
> match the
> > nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on
> which we
> > can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be
> treated in a
> > similar way.
> >
> > This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
> > 1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is
> in UEFI
> > mode"),
> > 2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
> >   2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
> >   2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")
> >
> > For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a
> node.
> > Case #2 is more interesting. We have two options, I think:
> >
> > a) Operators still set traits on nodes, drivers are simply validating
> them. E.g.
> > an operators sets CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID interface checks if
> it is
> > possible to do. The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
> > available it can be a lot of manual work.
> >
> > b) Drivers report the traits, and they get somehow added to the traits
> provided
> > by an operator. Technically, there are sub-cases again:
> >   b.1) The new traits API returns a union of operator-provided and
> > driver-provided traits
> >   b.2) The new traits API returns only operator-provided traits;
> driver-provided
> > traits are returned e.g. via a new field (node.driver_traits). Then nova
> will
> > have to merge the lists itself.
>

As an alternative, we could enable a configuration template by Resource
Class.
That way its explicit, but you don't have to set it on every node?

I think we would then need a version of (b.1) to report that extra trait up
to Nova, based on the given Resource Class.


> > My personal favorite is the last option: I'd like a clear distinction
> between
> > different "sources" of traits, but I'd also like to reduce manual work
> for
> > operators.
>

I am all for making an operators lives easier, but personally I lean
towards explicitly enabling things, hence my current preference for (a).

I would be tempted to add (b.2) as a second step, after we get (a) working
and tested.

> A valid 

Re: [openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Eric Fried]

* Adding references to the specs: ironic side [1]; nova side [2] (which
just merged).

* Since Jay is on vacation, I'll tentatively note his vote by proxy [3]
that ironic should be the source of truth - i.e. option (a).  I think
the upshot is that it's easier for Ironic to track and resolve conflicts
than for the virt driver to do so.

> The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
> available it can be a lot of manual work.

* How does option (b) help with this?

* I suggested a way to maintain the "source" of a trait (operator,
inspector, etc.) [4] which would help with resolving conflicts.
However, I agree it would be better to avoid this extra complexity if
possible.

* This is slightly off topic, but it's related and will eventually need
to be considered: How are you going to know whether a
UEFI-capable-but-not-enabled node should have its UEFI mode turned on?
Are you going to parse the traits specified in the flavor?  (This might
work for Ironic, but will be tough in the general case.)

[1] https://review.openstack.org/504531
[2] https://review.openstack.org/507052
[3]
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/507052/4/specs/queens/approved/ironic-traits.rst@88
[4]
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/504531/4/specs/approved/node-traits.rst@196

On 10/16/2017 11:24 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)
> 
> I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
> 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
> doing UEFI boot")
> 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the node can
> boot in UEFI mode")
> 
> This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor that
> requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are already 
> in
> UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
> 
> This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been thinking
> about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will match 
> the
> nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on which we
> can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be treated in a
> similar way.
> 
> This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
> 1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI
> mode"),
> 2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
>   2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
>   2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")
> 
> For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a node.
> Case #2 is more interesting. We have two options, I think:
> 
> a) Operators still set traits on nodes, drivers are simply validating them. 
> E.g.
> an operators sets CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID interface checks if it is
> possible to do. The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
> available it can be a lot of manual work.
> 
> b) Drivers report the traits, and they get somehow added to the traits 
> provided
> by an operator. Technically, there are sub-cases again:
>   b.1) The new traits API returns a union of operator-provided and
> driver-provided traits
>   b.2) The new traits API returns only operator-provided traits; 
> driver-provided
> traits are returned e.g. via a new field (node.driver_traits). Then nova will
> have to merge the lists itself.
> 
> My personal favorite is the last option: I'd like a clear distinction between
> different "sources" of traits, but I'd also like to reduce manual work for
> operators.
> 
> A valid counter-argument is: what if an operator wants to override a
> driver-provided trait? E.g. a node can do RAID 5, but I don't want this
> particular node to do it for any reason. I'm not sure if it's a valid case, 
> and
> what to do about it.
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> Dmitry
> 
> __
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

[openstack-dev] [ironic] ironic and traits

[Dmitry Tantsur]

Hi all,

I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)

I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
doing UEFI boot")
2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the node can
boot in UEFI mode")

This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor that
requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are already in
UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.

This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been thinking
about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will match the
nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on which we
can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be treated in a
similar way.

This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI
mode"),
2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
  2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
  2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")

For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a node.
Case #2 is more interesting. We have two options, I think:

a) Operators still set traits on nodes, drivers are simply validating them. E.g.
an operators sets CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID interface checks if it is
possible to do. The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
available it can be a lot of manual work.

b) Drivers report the traits, and they get somehow added to the traits provided
by an operator. Technically, there are sub-cases again:
  b.1) The new traits API returns a union of operator-provided and
driver-provided traits
  b.2) The new traits API returns only operator-provided traits; driver-provided
traits are returned e.g. via a new field (node.driver_traits). Then nova will
have to merge the lists itself.

My personal favorite is the last option: I'd like a clear distinction between
different "sources" of traits, but I'd also like to reduce manual work for
operators.

A valid counter-argument is: what if an operator wants to override a
driver-provided trait? E.g. a node can do RAID 5, but I don't want this
particular node to do it for any reason. I'm not sure if it's a valid case, and
what to do about it.

Let me know what you think.

Dmitry

__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev