In addition to the other questions below, I was wondering if you could explain why you included all those integer IDs; aren't the UUIDs sufficient?
Thanks, Mike From: Mike Spreitzer/Watson/IBM@IBMUS To: "Yathiraj Udupi (yudupi)" <yud...@cisco.com>, Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: 10/08/2013 12:41 AM Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [scheduler] APIs for Smart Resource Placement - Updated Instance Group Model and API extension model - WIP Draft Thanks. I have a few questions. First, I am a bit stymied by the style of API documentation used in that document and many others: it shows the first line of an HTTP request but says nothing about all the other details. I am sure some of those requests must have interesting bodies, but I am not always sure which ones have a body at all, let alone what goes in it. I suspect there may be some headers that are important too. Am I missing something? That draft says the VMs are created before the group. Is there a way today to create a VM without scheduling it? As I understand your draft, it lays out a three phase process for a client to follow: create resources without scheduling or activating them, then arrange them into groups, then schedule & activate them. By "activate" I mean, for a VM instance, to start running it. That ordering must hold independently for each resource. Activations are invoked by the client in an order that is consistent with (a) runtime dependencies that are mediated directly by the client (e.g., string slinging in the heat engine) and (b) the nature of the resources (for example, you can not attach a volume to a VM instance until after both have been created). Other than those considerations, the ordering and/or parallelism is a degree of freedom available to the client. Have I got this right? Couldn't we simplify this into a two phase process: create groups and resources with scheduling, then activate the resources in an acceptable order? FYI: my group is using Weaver as the software orchestration technique, so there are no runtime dependencies that are mediated directly by the client. The client sees a very simple API: the client presents a definition of all the groups and resources, and the service first schedules it all then activates in an acceptable order. (We already have something in OpenStack that can do activations in an acceptable order, right?) Weaver is not the only software orchestration technique with this property. The simplicity of this API is one reason I recommend software orchestration techniques that take dependency mediation out of the client's hands. I hope that with coming work on HOT we can get OpenStack to this level of API simplicity. But that struggle lies farther down the roadmap... Thanks, Mike "Yathiraj Udupi (yudupi)" <yud...@cisco.com> wrote on 10/07/2013 11:10:20 PM: > > Hi, > > Based on the discussions we have had in the past few scheduler sub- > team meetings, I am sharing a document that proposes an updated > Instance Group Model and API extension model. > This is a work-in-progress draft version, but sharing it for early feedback. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/ > 17OIiBoIavih-1y4zzK0oXyI66529f-7JTCVj-BcXURA/edit?usp=sharing > > This model support generic instance types, where an instance can > represent a virtual node of any resource type. But in the context > of Nova, an instance refers to the VM instance. > > This builds on the existing proposal for Instance Group Extension as > documented here in this blueprint: https:// > blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/instance-group-api-extension > > Thanks, > Yathi. _______________________________________________ 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