Deepti, I have read through the update. I have the following comments. You can talk with Prachi further because she's restricting the planning process. You can talk to Brian about pluggable UIs.
For the Service Offering: - The SO flag should just be a set of name/value pairs. Of which implicit dedicate is one such key. Planner Plugins should just set their own name/value pairs. - On creation of the SO, the admin should be able to specify the Planner to use for a SO. At that time, the planner is called with its pluggable UI to set the above name/value pair. Then, this planner along with the name/value pair is passed to deploy vm. - With that then there should be no is_dedicated column added to the service-offering table. - There's also no isdedicated flag on the createserviceoffering call. This means the service offering can be compose by other calls rather than always by the create service offering call. The problem with having it in the create service offering call is that now you've binded the create service offering call to the dedication and no one can remove it as a plugin. For the Implicit Dedication: - I don't see any mention of monitoring for the administrator. So if the implicit pool is close to capacity, how would an administrator know? Is there any type of alert? For the feature to work with different hypervisors: - I don't see any talks about what if the hypervisor native HA and DRS is on. This is a problem especially for vmware. Do we work with this? If we don't, how do we disable? If we do, how can we work with it? - Also, what if someone migrates the VM outside of cloudstack, then what happens? - I talked about being able to find a VM through VM sync that the VM has moved to a host that doesn't match the condition and alert the admin user. Has this been discussed and decided against? If it is against, how to we deal with the above cases? Thanks. --Alex > -----Original Message----- > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:deepti.doh...@citrix.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:25 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, Hosts > to a domain > > Hi all, > The feature Dedicated Resources "Private pod, cluster and host" is updated > with some changes. > Here is the updated FS: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Dedicated+Reso > urces+-+Private+pod%2C+cluster%2C+host+Functional+Spec > > Overview of updates to the feature requirement: > 1. Implicit Dedication: Admin can "implicitly" dedicate resources. Implicit > dedication can be for a zone/pod/cluster/host, but not associated with any > domain or account. > 2. A new flag in Service Offering, will indicate whether implicit dedication > is > required or not. > 3. Explicit Dedication: Admin will explicitly dedicate resources to > domain/account. > 4. A new parameter in deployVirtulMachine API will indicate whether to use > explicitly dedicated resources or not. > > So I am planning to add a new planner that will process dedication and > modify existing planners/allocators to make sure dedicated-resources will > not be used if any of the above flag is not specified. > > Any thoughts/comments? > > Thanks, > Deepti > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kan...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:23 PM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Kiran Koneti > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, > > Hosts to a domain > > > > Deepti, > > Regarding, no.5, I concur with your statement. However, we also assume > > that this scenario would not arise i.e. theoretically, in a cloud, a > > service provider always has capacity i.e. request for a VM should not > > fail, unless there are any specific conditions attached (such as > > request with a tag and there is no host that has that tag available > > etc.) > > > > Hari > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:deepti.doh...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 9:44 PM > > To: Kiran Koneti > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, > > Hosts to a domain > > > > Hi Kiran, > > See my comments inline. > > > > Thanks > > Deepti > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Kiran Koneti > > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:16 PM > > To: Deepti Dohare > > Cc: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Regarding the Dedicated Resources - Private pod, cluster, > > host Functional Spec . > > > > Hi Deepti , > > > > I have gone through the FS located in the below location and have some > > questions regarding the feature. > > > > FS Link: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Dedicated+Reso > > urces+-+Private+pod%2C+cluster%2C+host+Functional+Spec > > > > Here are the List of Questions: > > > > 1) Is the "Dedicated Resources Specific to OS on Dedicated HW" Feature > > also added to the same FS.(as I see that both got merged to a single > > feature.) > > > > [deepti] Are you asking about this feature: > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/VMs+on+hardw > > are+dedicated+to+a+specific+account ? This feature is combined with > > are+dedicated+to+a+specific+the > > feature: Private pod, cluster, host (see the 2nd row in the table). > > > > 2) How are we going to dedicate the pod/cluster/host to a particular > > account(are we using only api's or there any UI changes also to > > implement the same.) > > > > [deepti] We are going to dedicate the resources using APIs only which > > will be added as a part of the plugin. > > > > 3) If I dedicate a pod to an account then it is equal that I dedicated > > the > > cluster as well as the hosts in that cluster to the account? > > > > [deepti] If we dedicate a pod to an account, then all the clusters and > > hosts inside the pod will be automatically dedicated to that account. > > > > 4) Adding to the above if I have a cluster with two hosts then can I > > dedicate each host to a different account? > > > > [deepti] Yes we can dedicate two clusters to two accounts unless > > clusters or pods to which the host belongs, is not dedicated to any > account/domain. > > > > 5) I have a host dedicated to an account but if I won't use the Service > > offering with "isdedicated" to true and use any other offering will > > the VM be deployed? (case is there are no other non dedicated hosts in > > the pool.) > > > > [deepti] According to me, the vm deploy operation will fail if there > > are no non-dedicated hosts available. Will confirm this scenario. > > > > 6) Will we use the UUID or just the ID of the pod/cluster/host in the > > api > to > > dedicate a particular host. > > > > [Deepti] We are using only the UUIDs of the pod/cluster/host to > > dedicate the resource. > > > > 7) Can we implement the same in the Upgraded environment also (If the > > "UUID" concept is used as the hosts upgraded from 2.2.14 doesn't > > contain theUUID's). > > > > [deepti] Like all other APIs, this use case will also be taken care of. > > > > > > Regards, > > Kiran. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ram Ganesh [mailto:ram.gan...@citrix.com] > > > Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 1:00 AM > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, Clusters, > > > Hosts to a domain > > > > > > Saurav, > > > > > > Good to see your concerns are addressed. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Ram > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Saurav Lahiri [mailto:saurav.lah...@sungard.com] > > > > Sent: 16 January 2013 23:24 > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, > > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain > > > > > > > > Deepti, > > > > That's great. Thanks for addressing this concern. > > > > > > > > Saurav > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Deepti Dohare > > > > <deepti.doh...@citrix.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Here is an updated PRD link for this feature: > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/CLOUDSTACK/private-host-cluster-pod.htm > > > > > l I am updating the FS based on the updated PRD, will be sharing > > > > > it > > > > soon. > > > > > > > > > > Saurav, > > > > > Please see comments inline.. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > Deepti > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > From: Saurav Lahiri [mailto:saurav.lah...@sungard.com] > > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 5:29 PM > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > Cc: Alex Huang > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, > > > > Clusters, > > > > > Hosts > > > > > > to a domain > > > > > > > > > > > > Deepti, > > > > > > From the functional spec it appears that domains that have > > > > > > been > > > > assigned > > > > > > dedicated pods/cluster/hosts will be restricted to only these > > > > dedicated > > > > > > elements. > > > > > > It appears to imply that domains can use either share or > > > > > > dedicated > > > > > elements > > > > > > but not both. Or can they use both types? > > > > > > > > > > [deepti] Based on the status of the flags (mentioned in the > > > > > link), > > > > domain > > > > > can use dedicated or shared resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > A use case[ not an entirely hypothetical use case] where I see > > > > > > the > > > > > described > > > > > > behaviour might be a limitation is where a customer would like > > > > > > to > > > > have > > > > > both > > > > > > the offerings based on the type of their requirement. They > > > > > > would > > > > expect > > > > > > that shared environment would be less expensive than dedicated > > > > > > environment and they would want to continue hosting perhaps > > > > > > their test/dev environment on the shared environment. But for > > > > > > the > > > > business apps > > > > > > they would like to use the dedicated environment. > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current proposal do u think there is a way to achieve > > > > > > this > > > > and > > > > > > provide this is in a easy to use manner. > > > > > > Do we want to add a shared/dedicated flag with each vm > > > > > > instance > > > > creation > > > > > > the way Nitin had suggested. > > > > > > Just a thought to raise discussion around this use case. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thoughts?? > > > > > > > > > > [deepti] Thanks for the suggestion. We will have a dedication > > > > > flag > > > > in > > > > > service offering, which will let the user choose which > > > > > resources he > > > > want ( > > > > > dedicated or non-dedicated) which I think will handle the use > > > > > case > > > > you have > > > > > mentioned. > > > > > > > > > > If there is no available resources with the domain having > > > > > dedicated resources, CloudStack will allow the user to use > > > > > non-dedicated > > > > resources > > > > > based on the global parameter "Implicit dedication flag". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Saurav Lahiri > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Deepti Dohare > > > > > > <deepti.doh...@citrix.com>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks Alex for pointing out. I will update the FS keeping > > > > > > > your > > > > points > > > > > > > in mind. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:09 AM > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate Pods, > > > > Clusters, > > > > > > > Hosts > > > > > > > > to a domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Deepti, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your wiki has references to defunct wiki/bug tracking. > > > > > > > > Please correct > > > > > > > that by > > > > > > > > moving those into the apache wiki/jira. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the two FSes has enough details for review > > > > > > > > yet > > > > but > > > > > > > > based on APIs posted, I can see the way it is heading so I > > > > > > > > want > > > > to > > > > > > > > make some requirements on the direction. Dedication is > > > > > > > > not an integral part of cloudstack. This requirement > > > > > > > > means the > > > > following > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - You should not add dedication as an integral part of the > > > > > > > > organization > > > > > > > units > > > > > > > > such as zone, pod, and cluster. It should be in steps > > > > reflected in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > API. For > > > > > > > > example, from an API standpoint, it should be > > > > > > > > - admin adds a pod > > > > > > > > - admin dedicates the pod to a domain > > > > > > > > - admin enables pod. > > > > > > > > - UI can makes these three calls on behalf of the admin if > > > > > > > > you > > > > want > > > > > > > > to introduce a easy step. > > > > > > > > - You should add a plugin that adds dedication apis and > > > > implements a > > > > > > > > deployment planner interface. > > > > > > > > - In cloudstack's core code itself, you should modify the > > > > following > > > > > > > things. > > > > > > > > - service offering should carry a planner name to use. > > > > > > > > - deploy vm code should use the planner that's > > > > specified in > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > service > > > > > > > > offering. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Alex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > From: Deepti Dohare [mailto:deepti.doh...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 11:33 AM > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate > > > > > > > > > Pods, Clusters, Hosts to a domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Based on the discussion, we have 2 separate features: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Private pod, cluster, host 2. VMs on hardware > > > > > > > > > dedicated to a specific account Functional specs for > > > > > > > > > these 2 features are posted on Apache CloudStack > > > > wiki: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+for+VMs+on > > > > > > > > > +hardware+dedicated+to+a+specific+account > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Dedicated+Res > > > > > > > > o > > > > > > > > > urces+-+Private+pod%2C+cluster%2C+host+Functional+Spec > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This is the first draft, and modifications will be done > > > > > > > > > along > > > > the > > > > > way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > > > > Deepti > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Hari Kannan [mailto:hari.kan...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 10:30 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate > > > > > > > > > > Pods, Clusters, Hosts to a domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Nitin, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please see inline > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > From: Nitin Mehta [mailto:nitin.me...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2012 9:01 PM > > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate > > > > > > > > > > Pods, Clusters, > > > > > > > > > Hosts > > > > > > > > > > to a domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 27-Dec-2012, at 4:47 AM, Hari Kannan wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is no requirement for the end user administer > > > > > > > > > > > the hardware - > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding the OAMP, I believe the resources are > > > > > > > > > > > still > > > > owner, > > > > > > > > > > > administered, maintained and provisioned by the root > > > > admin - > > > > > > > > > > > they are simply "reserved" for the said > > > > > > > > > > > domain/sub-domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But, what would the admin view of all the resources be. > > > > Lets say > > > > > > > > > > he has dedicated Pod P1 to domain D1 and Cluster C1 to > > > > domain D2 > > > > > > > > > > and Host h1 to domain D3 then in this case how will > > > > > > > > > > his dashboard look > > > > > > > like ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari: Perhaps, the issue is we have a single persona > > > > > > > > > > called admin that > > > > > > > > > seems > > > > > > > > > > to be a catch-all. This admin role is actually > > > > > > > > > > composed of multiple roles - I > > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > > the OAMP task as a provider side role - and hence no > > > > different > > > > > > > > > > than today from that perspective - i.e. the domain > > > > > > > > > > admin > > > > (which > > > > > > > > > > is the > > > > > > > > "consumer" > > > > > > > > > side > > > > > > > > > > role) need not have access to the provider side > > > > > > > > > > resources - > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > might be a need for Hosting environments, but for a > > > > > > > > > > cloud service provider as well as private clouds, I > > > > > > > > > > don't know if > > > > this > > > > > > > > > > is a requirement. I do agree that it would be a nice > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > have > > > > > > > > > > feature > > > > > > > though.. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regarding CRUD/Mice's question - I don't believe > > > > > > > > > > > that is > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > intention - > > > > > > > > > For > > > > > > > > > > context, Mice wrote " 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?" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > However, I think of this feature more along the > > > > > > > > > > > lines of > > > > what > > > > > > > > > > > Saurav > > > > > > > > > wrote > > > > > > > > > > " Lets say that the resources on the pod dedicated to > > > > > > > > > > the child-domain are exhausted and resources on parent > > > > > > > > > > pod are available. In this case will provisioning of > > > > > > > > > > vms for the child-domain happen on parent's pod. So > > > > > > > > > > essentially > > > > provisioning > > > > > > > > > > has a affinity for local pods if available. And if > > > > resources are > > > > > > > > > > not available on the local pod but available on the > > > > > > > > > > parent > > > > pod > > > > > > > > > > then use > > > > > > > that. > > > > > > > > Would it be good to configure this affinity" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am afraid affinity is not the right thing to configure. > > > > The > > > > > > > > > > child domain has > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > expectation and is paying for dedicating resources > > > > > > > > > > just to > > > > > itself. > > > > > > > > > > If these resources exhaust we should definitely fail > > > > deploying > > > > > > > > > > his vm. Instead if we deploy it in its parent > > > > > > > > > > dedicated resources and still charge him premium > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > is not correct. We should set the expectations right. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari: I'm open to either choice - dedication can be > > > > interpreted > > > > > > > > > > differently - > > > > > > > > > If I > > > > > > > > > > have some resources dedicated, no one else can touch > > > > > > > > > > it, it doesn't mean I don't get anything more - my > > > > > > > > > > preference is > > > > to use > > > > > > > > > > a global to indicate if I > > > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > > draw from parent pool or not, with the default choice > > > > > > > > > > of > > > > "yes" > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also what will be the change in usage ? How will we be > > > > metering > > > > > > > > > > the end user here with dedicated resources? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also think we need to have a flag in the service > > > > > > > > > > offering asking the end > > > > > > > > > user > > > > > > > > > > if he/she wants to deploy vm on dedicated or shared > > > > resources. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hari > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 9:48 AM > > > > > > > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: Dedicate > > > > Pods, > > > > > > > > > > > Clusters, Hosts to a domain > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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:prachi.da...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:59 AM > > > > > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: > > > > > > > > > > >> Dedicate > > > > Pods, > > > > > > > > > > >> Clusters, Hosts to a domain > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Comments inline. > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> -Prachi > > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > >> From: Devdeep Singh > > > > > > > > > > >> [mailto:devdeep.si...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 4:16 PM > > > > > > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Dedicated Resources: > > > > > > > > > > >> Dedicate > > > > Pods, > > > > > > > > > > >> Clusters, Hosts to a domain > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> Some queries inline > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > > > > >>> From: Prachi Damle > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:prachi.da...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 3:04 PM > > > > > > > > > > >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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:devdeep.si...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > >>> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 2:58 PM > > > > > > > > > > >>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>> 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:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > >>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 7:21 PM > > > > > > > > > > >>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>>> 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:deepti.doh...@citrix.com] > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:32 AM > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>>>> 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:weiran.x...@gmail.com] > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 4:52 PM > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>> 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
