Nova generates a single exists event for each instance, and that doesn't
cause a lot of trouble as far as I've been able to see.
What is the relative number of images compared to instances in a "typical"
cloud?
Doug
On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:20 PM, Neal, Phil <phil.n...@hp.com> wrote:
> I'm a little concerned that a batch payload won't align with "exists"
> events generated from other services. To my recollection, Cinder, Trove and
> Neutron all emit exists events on a per-instance basis....a consumer would
> have to figure out a way to handle/unpack these separately if they needed a
> granular feed. Not the end of the world, I suppose, but a bit inconsistent.
>
> And a minor quibble: batching would also make it a much bigger issue if a
> consumer missed a notification....though I guess you could counteract that
> by increasing the frequency (but wouldn't that defeat the purpose?)
>
> >
> >
> >
> > On 08/13/2013 04:35 PM, Andrew Melton wrote:
> > >> I'm just concerned with the type of notification you'd send. It has to
> > >> be enough fine grained so we don't lose too much information.
> > >
> > > It's a tough situation, sending out an image.exists for each image with
> > > the same payload as say image.upload would likely create TONS of
> traffic.
> > > Personally, I'm thinking about a batch payload, with a bare minimum of
> the
> > > following values:
> > >
> > > 'payload': [{'id': 'uuid1', 'owner': 'tenant1', 'created_at':
> > > 'some_date', 'size': 100000000},
> > > {'id': 'uuid2', 'owner': 'tenant2', 'created_at':
> > > 'some_date', 'deleted_at': 'some_other_date', 'size': 200000000}]
> > >
> > > That way the audit job/task could be configured to emit in batches
> which
> > > a deployer could tweak the settings so as to not emit too many
> messages.
> > > I definitely welcome other ideas as well.
> >
> > Would it be better to group by tenant vs. image?
> >
> > One .exists per tenant that contains all the images owned by that tenant?
> >
> > -S
> >
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Andrew Melton
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 4:27 AM, Julien Danjou <jul...@danjou.info
> > > <mailto:jul...@danjou.info>> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 12 2013, Andrew Melton wrote:
> > >
> > > > So, my question to the Ceilometer community is this, does this
> > > sound like
> > > > something Ceilometer would find value in and use? If so, would
> this be
> > > > something
> > > > we would want most deployers turning on?
> > >
> > > Yes. I think we would definitely be happy to have the ability to
> drop
> > > our pollster at some time.
> > > I'm just concerned with the type of notification you'd send. It
> has to
> > > be enough fine grained so we don't lose too much information.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Julien Danjou
> > > // Free Software hacker / freelance consultant
> > > // http://julien.danjou.info
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
