Hi Mike and Zane,
Le 27/09/2013 15:58, Mike Spreitzer a écrit :
Zane Bitter <zbit...@redhat.com> wrote on 09/27/2013 08:24:49 AM:
> Your diagrams clearly show scheduling happening in a separate stage to
> (infrastructure) orchestration, which is to say that at the point where
> resources are scheduled, their actual creation is in the *future*.
>
> I am not a Climate expert, but it seems to me that they have a
> near-identical problem to solve: how do they integrate with Heat such
> that somebody who has reserved resources in the past can actually
create
> them (a) as part of a Heat stack or (b) as standalone resources, at the
> user's option. IMO OpenStack should solve this problem only once.
If I understand correctly, what Climate adds to the party is planning
allocations to happen at some specific time in the non-immediate
future. A holistic infrastructure scheduler is planning allocations
to happen just as soon as we can get the plans through the relevant
code path, which is why I describe it as "now".
Climate is wide-scoped aiming to exclusively reserve any kind of
resources by a certain time. This generic sentence doesn't mean Climate
can't schedule things 'now': you can ask for an immediate lease
(starting 'now') and youwill get the resources as of now.
Climate team is actually split into two different teams, one focusing on
hardware procurement and one focusing of virtual procurement. I can't
speak on behalf of the 'Climate Virtual' team, but I would bet
scheduling an Heat stack or aSavanna cluster will require some kind of
holistic DSL, indeed.
From the 'Climate Physical' POV, that could even be necessary,
butyetunclear at the moment.
-Sylvain
> If I understood your remarks correctly, we agree that there is no
> (known) reason that the scheduling has to occur in the middle of
> orchestration (which would have implied that it needed to be
> incorporated in some sense into Heat).
If you agree that by orchestration you meant specifically
infrastructure orchestration then we are agreed. If software
orchestration is also in the picture then I also agree that holistic
infrastructure scheduling does not *have to* go in between software
orchestration and infrastructure orchestration --- but I think that's
a pretty good place for it.
> Right, so what I'm saying is that if all those things are _stated_ in
> the input then there's no need to run the orchestration engine to find
> out what they'll be; they're already stated.
Yep.
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
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
