Exactly. Thank you for your clarification. This is part of my job and my company would like to contribute to openstack. Also I hope we can have more discussion about scheduling.
发件人: Henrique Truta [mailto:henriquecostatr...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2014年4月25日 1:16 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][ceilometer][gantt] Dynamic scheduling Donald, By "selection", I think Jenny means identifying whether and which active VM should be migrated, once the current Nova scheduler only deals with the VM in the momment of its creation or with a specific user input. 2014-04-24 12:08 GMT-03:00 Dugger, Donald D <donald.d.dug...@intel.com<mailto:donald.d.dug...@intel.com>>: Jenny- You should look at the `Propose Scheduler Library blueprint’: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/82133/9 This BP is to create a client library for making calls to the scheduler. If you base your work upon this library then you shouldn’t need to care about whether the Core Scheduler is the Nova integrated scheduler or the Gantt separated scheduler, the library will call `a` scheduler as appropriate. Having said that, I’m not sure I understand the distinction you are seeing between `selection’ and `placement’. The current scheduler filters all hosts based upon filters (the selection part) and then the weighting function finds the best node to host the VM (the placement part). Seems to me the current scheduler does both of those tasks. (We can argue the effectiveness/efficiency of the current implementation but I think it’s functionally complete.) Also, have you proposed a session at the Juno summit on your proposal for dynamic scheduling, seems like it would be appropriate. -- Don Dugger "Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale Ph: 303/443-3786 From: Jiangying (Jenny) [mailto:jenny.jiangy...@huawei.com<mailto:jenny.jiangy...@huawei.com>] Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2014 3:36 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][ceilometer][gantt] Dynamic scheduling Hi, We have checked that gantt now just made a synced up copy of the code in nova. We still think dynamic scheduling will be a benefit of the nova scheduler (or gantt later). The main difference between static and dynamic scheduling is that static scheduling is a vm placement problem, while dynamic scheduling deals with both vm selection and vm placement. Our scheduling mechanism consists of three parts: 1. Controller, which triggers the scheduling; 2. Data Collector, which collects the resource usage and topo for scheduling; 3. Core Scheduler, which decides how to schedule the vms; We prefer to reuse the nova scheduler as the Core Scheduler, in order to avoid the possible inconsistent between static scheduling and dynamic scheduling. The vm selection function will be added into nova scheduler. For Data Collector, we expect to get the performance data from ceilometer and topo from nova. There is still one question that where the controller should be implemented? We regard implementing the controller in nova scheduler as the first choice. And we also consider extending ceilometer.(Ie. When ceilometer discovers an overload host, an alarm can be reported and it can trigger a vm evacuate.) Do you have any comments? Jenny 发件人: Henrique Truta [mailto:henriquecostatr...@gmail.com] 发送时间: 2014年4月12日 1:00 收件人: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 主题: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Dynamic scheduling Is there anyone currently working on Neat/Gantt projects? I'd like to contribute to them, as well. 2014-04-11 11:37 GMT-03:00 Andrew Laski <andrew.la...@rackspace.com<mailto:andrew.la...@rackspace.com>>: On 04/10/14 at 11:33pm, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: Andrew, Thank you for clarification! On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 3:47 PM, Andrew Laski <andrew.la...@rackspace.com<mailto:andrew.la...@rackspace.com>>wrote: The scheduler as it currently exists is a placement engine. There is sufficient complexity in the scheduler with just that responsibility so I would prefer to see anything that's making runtime decisions separated out. Perhaps it could just be another service within the scheduler project once it's broken out, but I think it will be beneficial to have a clear distinction between placement decisions and runtime monitoring. Do you think that auto-scaling could be considered another facet of this 'runtime monitoring' functionality? Now it is a combination of Heat and Ceilometer. Does it worth moving to hypothetical runtime mobility service as well? Auto-scaling is certainly a facet of runtime monitoring. But auto-scaling performs actions based on a set of user defined rules and is very visible while the enhancements proposed below are intended to benefit deployers and be very invisible to users. So the set of allowable actions is very constrained compared to what auto-scaling can do. In my opinion what's being proposed doesn't seem to fit cleanly into any existing service, so perhaps it could start as a standalone entity. Then once there's something that can be used and demoed a proper place might suggest itself, or it might make sense to keep it separate. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Jay Lau <jay.lau....@gmail.com<mailto:jay.lau....@gmail.com>> wrote: @Oleg, Till now, I'm not sure the target of Gantt, is it for initial placement policy or run time policy or both, can you help clarify? @Henrique, not sure if you know IBM PRS (Platform Resource Scheduler) [1], we have finished the "dynamic scheduler" in our Icehouse version (PRS 2.2), it has exactly the same feature as your described, we are planning a live demo for this feature in Atlanta Summit. I'm also writing some document for run time policy which will cover more run time policies for OpenStack, but not finished yet. (My shame for the slow progress). The related blueprint is [2], you can also get some discussion from [3] [1] http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?infotype= AN&subtype=CA&htmlfid=897/ENUS213-590&appname=USN [2] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/resource- optimization-service [3] http://markmail.org/~jaylau/OpenStack-DRS Thanks. 2014-04-09 23:21 GMT+08:00 Oleg Gelbukh <ogelb...@mirantis.com<mailto:ogelb...@mirantis.com>>: Henrique, You should check out Gantt project [1], it could be exactly the place to implement such features. It is a generic cross-project Scheduler as a Service forked from Nova recently. [1] https://github.com/openstack/gantt -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh Mirantis Labs On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 6:41 PM, Henrique Truta < henriquecostatr...@gmail.com<mailto:henriquecostatr...@gmail.com>> wrote: Hello, everyone! I am currently a graduate student and member of a group of contributors to OpenStack. We believe that a dynamic scheduler could improve the efficiency of an OpenStack cloud, either by rebalancing nodes to maximize performance or to minimize the number of active hosts, in order to minimize energy costs. Therefore, we would like to propose a dynamic scheduling mechanism to Nova. The main idea is using the Ceilometer information (e.g. RAM, CPU, disk usage) through the ceilometer-client and dinamically decide whether a instance should be live migrated. This might me done as a Nova periodic task, which will be executed every once in a given period or as a new independent project. In both cases, the current Nova scheduler will not be affected, since this new scheduler will be pluggable. We have done a search and found no such initiative in the OpenStack BPs. Outside the community, we found only a recent IBM announcement for a similiar feature in one of its cloud products. A possible flow is: In the new scheduler, we periodically make a call to Nova, get the instance list from a specific host and, for each instance, we make a call to the ceilometer-client (e.g. $ ceilometer statistics -m cpu_util -q resource=$INSTANCE_ID) and then, according to some specific parameters configured by the user, analyze the meters and do the proper migrations. Do you have any comments or suggestions? -- Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Thanks, Jay _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- -- Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- -- Ítalo Henrique Costa Truta
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
