There is also the "implicitly dedicated" model offered by AWS as well. In this model the customer purchases "dedicated instances". Any time the user requests a dedicated instance, the instance starts on a host that already has that user's instances (if there is space) or on a new host where there is no other tenant's VMs running (or stopped). So there is no explicit action by the admin to dedicate physical resources (named hosts/pods) to this customer.
On 12/21/12 9:47 AM, "Alex Huang" <[email protected]> wrote: >Planners are also plugins. It just means your dedicated piece needs to >implement a different planner. > >We may need some cloud-engine work. Prachi and I talked about the idea >to let the service offering contain the planner cloud-engine should use >to deploy a vm. You can explore that idea. > >But this part is just action acl. This is the easy part. The more >difficult part is the read part. How do you limit what they can access. >That part you need to talk with Prachi about on her design. > >Is there any requirement to let the end user administer the hardware >since the hardware is dedicated to them? > >My problem right now is the list of requirements sent in your email is >not enough. We need to send out a list with regard to the following. > >- OAMP. This means (Operations, Administrations, Maintenance, >Provisioning) of hardware/physical entities/capacities. Who is >ultimately responsible for the OAMP aspects of the dedicated resources? >Is it the domain admin/system amdin/ or some new role? Depending on >this, your interaction with the new ACL work can range from low to high. >This needs to be clearly outlined in the requirements. >- CRUD operations. This means (Create, Read, Update, Delete) on virtual >entities and physical entities. How does dedication affect those >operations? For example, questions asked by Mice in another email. >Here, you need to gather up the list of virtual entities we have and >specify what it means for that entities in terms of CRUD. > >This is not a small feature. Tread carefully. > >--Alex > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Prachi Damle [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:59 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, >>Hosts >> to a domain >> >> Comments inline. >> >> -Prachi >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Devdeep Singh [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:16 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, >>Hosts >> to a domain >> >> Some queries inline >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Prachi Damle [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:04 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, >> > Hosts to a domain >> > >> > Planners and allocators work on a DeploymentPlan provided as input. >> > The caller can specify particular zone, pod, cluster, host, pool >> > etc., to be used for deployment. >> > So for enforcing the use of a dedicated pod, caller can set the podId >> > in the plan and planners will search under the specific pod only. >> >> >>If a deploy vm request is from a user belonging to a domain which has >>a >> dedicated resource, then setting the podid/clusterid etc. will work. >>However, >> if I understand correctly there is a requirement that no user from >>outside the >> domain, should be able >>to use the dedicated resource. They cannot be >> restricted by how the planner is implemented right now. Should the >>avoid list >> be used? But it doesn't seem like the right use of the field. >> >> >> Yes avoid set lets you set the zone,pods,clusters,hosts to be avoided >>by the >> planner. It can be used for this purpose. >> >> >> > >> > There may be some changes necessary (like accepting a list of >> > pods/clusters instead of single Ids) but this design of planners >> > should let you enforce the use of dedicated resources without major >> changes to planners. >> >> >>Doesn't this mean that we are changing the core cloudstack code to >> achieve dedicated resources features? >> >> >> This change is not necessary; it is an optimization. >> >> Also, another way is to add a custom planner say >>DedicatedResourcePlanner >> that will search for only dedicated resources for the given account. >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Devdeep Singh [mailto:[email protected]] >> > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:58 PM >> > To: [email protected] >> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, >> > Hosts to a domain >> > >> > Hi Alex, >> > >> > I assume some apis will be added for letting an admin dedicate a >> > pod/cluster etc to a domain. This can be contained in a plugin. >> > However, for enforcing that a dedicated resource is picked up for >> > servicing deploy vm requests from a user; wouldn't planners and >> > allocators have to be updated to take care of this? >> > >> > Regards, >> > Devdeep >> > >> > > -----Original Message----- >> > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:21 PM >> > > To: [email protected] >> > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, >> > > Hosts to a domain >> > > >> > > Deepti, >> > > >> > > As Chiradeep pointed out, you should get in contact with Prachi. >> > > You should plan on this after the ACL change or you can help out on >> > > the ACL >> > change. >> > > >> > > For this feature, you really need to think about the stats >> > > collection side of this because you'll need to provide a lot of >> > > warnings about being near capacity so people can plan accordingly. >> > > It cannot be a case of the dedicated resource explodes and then they >> > > go and work on expanding it. So you should also talk with Murali >> > > about how to do alerts in >> > his new notification system. >> > > >> > > And then in your spec, you need to plan out how to do this in a >> > > plugin architecture and not modify the core code. >> > > >> > > --Alex >> > > >> > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:32 AM >> > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, >> > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain >> > > > >> > > > Hi Mice, >> > > > >> > > > Once a new pod is dedicated to the child-domain, deployment of >> > > > the new VMs will happen only in the new pod. >> > > > The existing VMs will keep running on parent-domain's pod. >> > > > >> > > > Do you have any other suggestion on this. >> > > > >> > > > - Deepti >> > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > > > > From: Mice Xia [mailto:[email protected]] >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:52 PM >> > > > > To: [email protected] >> > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, >> > > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain >> > > > > >> > > > > but if further sub-domain is assigned a different pod then it >> > > > > cannot access >> > > > its >> > > > > parent domain's pod. 2. Sub-domain and its child domains will >> > > > > have the sole access to that new pod. >> > > > > >> > > > > when child domain already has some VMs on parent domain's >> > > > > dedicated pod, is it allowed to assign a pod to the child >>domain? >> > > > > or the existing VMs >> > > > will >> > > > > be migrated to the new pod? >> > > > > >> > > > > mice
