I have updated the reviews related to configuration groups. Trove - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53168/ Python-TroveClient - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/53169/
Please review at your leisure. TODOs: * add pagination support for configuration on instances * mark configuration groups as deleted instead of doing a hard delete in the db. Thanks, Craig Vyvial On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Craig Vyvial <cp16...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oops forgot the link on BP for versioning templates. > > > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/trove/+spec/configuration-templates-versionable > > > On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Craig Vyvial <cp16...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I have been trying to figure out where a call for the "default" >> configuration should go. I just finished adding a method to get the >> [mysqld] section via an api call but not sure where this should go yet. >> >> Currently i made it: >> GET - /instance/{id}/configuration >> >> This kinda only half fits in the path here because it doesnt really >> describe that this is the "default" configuration on the instance. On the >> other hand, it shows that it is coupled to the instance because we need the >> instance flavor to give what the current values are in the template applied >> to the instance. >> >> Maybe other options could be: >> GET - /instance/{id}/configuration/default >> GET - /instance/{id}/defaultconfiguration >> GET - /instance/{id}/default-configuration >> GET - /configuration/default/instance/{id} >> >> Suggestions welcome on the path. >> >> There is some wonkiness showing this information to the user because of >> the difference in the values used. [1] This example shows that the template >> uses "50M" as a value applied and the configuration-group would apply the >> value equivalent to 52428800. I dont think we should worry about this now >> but this could lead to confusion by a user. If they are a power-user type >> then they might understand compared to a entry level user. >> >> [1] https://gist.github.com/cp16net/6816691 >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 3, 2013 at 2:36 PM, McReynolds, Auston <amcreyno...@ebay.com >> > wrote: >> >>> If User X's existing instance is isolated from the change, but there's >>> no snapshot/clone/versioning of the current settings on X's instance >>> (via the trove database or jinja template), then how will >>> GET /configurations/:id return the correct/current settings? Unless >>> you're planning on communicating with the guest? There's nothing >>> wrong with that approach, it's just not explicitly noted anywhere in >>> the blueprint. For some reason I inferred that it would be handled >>> like trove security-groups. >>> >> So this is a great point. There are talks about making the templating >> versioned in some form or fashion. ekonetzk(irc) said he would write up a >> BP around versioning. >> >> >>> >>> On a slightly different note: If the default template will not be >>> represented as a default configuration-group from an api standpoint, >>> then how will you support the ability for a user to enumerate the list >>> of default configuration-group values for a service-type? >>> GET /configurations/:id won't be applicable, so will it be >>> something like GET /configurations/default? >>> >> see above paragraph. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Craig Vyvial <cp16...@gmail.com> >>> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> Date: Thursday, October 3, 2013 11:17 AM >>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List < >>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [trove] Configuration API BP >>> >>> >>> inline. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:03 PM, McReynolds, Auston >>> <amcreyno...@ebay.com> wrote: >>> >>> Awesome! I only have one follow-up question: >>> >>> Regarding #6 & #7, how will the clone behavior work given that the >>> defaults are hydrated by a non-versioned jinja template? >>> >>> >>> I am not sure i understand "clone behavior" because there is not really a >>> concept of cloning here. The jinja template is created and passed in the >>> "prepare call" to the guest to write to the default my.cnf file. >>> >>> When a configuration-group is removed the instance will return to the >>> "default" state. This does not exactly act as a clone behavior. >>> >>> >>> >>> Scenario Timeline: >>> >>> T1) Cloud provider begins with the default jinja template, but changes >>> the values for properties 'a' and 'b'. (Template Version #1) >>> T2) User X deploys a database instance >>> T3) Cloud provider decides to update the existing template by modifying >>> property 'c'. (Template Version #2) >>> T4) User Z deploys a database instance >>> >>> I think it goes without saying that User Z's instance gets Template >>> Version #2 (w/ changes to a & b & c), but does User X? >>> >>> >>> No User X does not get the changes. For User X to get the changes a >>> maintenance may need to be scheduled. >>> >>> >>> >>> If it's a "true" clone, User X should be isolated from a change in >>> defaults, no? >>> >>> >>> User X will not see these default changes until a new instance is >>> created. >>> >>> >>> >>> Come to think about it, this is eerily similar to security-groups: >>> administratively, it can be beneficial to share a >>> configuration/security-group across multiple instances, but it can >>> also be a nightmare. Internally, it's extremely rare that we wish to >>> apply a database change to multiple tenants at once, so I'd argue >>> at a minimum to support a CONF opt-in for isolation, if not default >>> to it. >>> >>> >>> If i understand this correctly my above statement means that its isolated >>> by default. >>> >>> >>> >>> On a related note: Will the default template for a service-type be >>> represented as a default configuration-group? If so, I imagine it >>> can be managed through the API (or MGMT API)? >>> >>> >>> The default template will not be represented as a configuration group. >>> This could potentially be a good fit but its more of a nice to have type >>> of feature. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Craig Vyvial <cp16...@gmail.com> >>> Reply-To: OpenStack Development Mailing List >>> <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> >>> Date: Wednesday, October 2, 2013 10:06 AM >>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List < >>> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [trove] Configuration API BP >>> >>> >>> I'm glad we both agree on most of these answers. >>> :) >>> >>> On Oct 2, 2013 11:57 AM, "Michael Basnight" <mbasni...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Oct 1, 2013, at 11:20 PM, McReynolds, Auston wrote: >>> >>> > I have a few questions left unanswered by the blueprint/wiki: >>> > >>> > #1 - Should the true default configuration-group for a service-type be >>> > customizable by the cloud provider? >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> > >>> > #2 - Should a user be able to enumerate the entire actualized/realized >>> > set of values for a configuration-group, or just the overrides? >>> >>> actualized >>> >>> > >>> > #3 - Should a user be able to apply a different configuration-group on >>> > a master, than say, a slave? >>> >>> Yes >>> >>> > >>> > #4 - If a user creates a new configuration-group with values equal to >>> > that of the default configuration-group, what is the expected >>> > behavior? >>> >>> Im not sure thats an issue. You will select your config group, and it >>> will >>> be the one used. I believe you are talking the difference between the >>> "template" thats used to set up values for the instance, and the config >>> options that users are allowed to edit. >>> Those are going to be "appended", so to speak, to the existing template. >>> Itll be up to the server software to define what order values, if >>> duplicated, are read / used. >>> >>> > >>> > #5 - For GET /configuration/parameters, where is the list of supported >>> > parameters and their metadata sourced from? >>> >>> >>> >>> i believe its a db tableŠ someone may have to correct me there. >>> >>> > >>> > #6 - Should a user be able to reset a configuration-group to the >>> > current default configuration-group? >>> >>> Yes, assuming we have a "default config group", and im not sure we have a >>> concept of that. We have what the install creates, the templated config >>> file. Removing the association of your config from the instance will do >>> this thought. >>> >>> > >>> > #7 - Is a new configuration-group a clone of the then current default >>> > configuration-group with various changes, or will inheritence be >>> > utilized? >>> >>> I think clone will be saner for now. But you can edit your group with a >>> PATCH, and that will not clone it. See [1] first paragraph. >>> >>> > >>> > #8 - How should the state of pending configuration-group changes be >>> > reflected in GET /instances/:id ? How will this state be >>> > persisted? >>> >>> You are talking about changes that require a restart i believe. I think >>> this falls into the same category as our conversation about minor version >>> updates. We can have a pretty generic "restart required" somewhere there. >>> >>> > >>> > #9 - Reminder: Once multiple service-types and versions are supported, >>> > the configuration-group will need a service-type field. >>> >>> Most def. You will only be able to assign relevant configs to their >>> service-types, and the /configuration/parameters will need to be typed >>> too. >>> >>> > >>> > #10 - Should dynamic values (via functions and operators) in >>> > configuration-groups be supported? >>> > Example: innodb_buffer_pool_size = 150 * flavor['ram']/512 >>> >>> Hmmmm. This is quite interesting. But no, not v1. I totally agree w/ the >>> nice-to-have. Good idea though, we should add it to the blueprint. >>> >>> > >>> > My Thoughts: >>> > >>> > #1 - Yes >>> > #2 - Actualized >>> > #3 - Yes >>> > #4 - Depends on whether the approach for configuration-groups is to >>> > clone or to inherit. >>> > #5 - ? >>> > #6 - Yes >>> > #7 - ? >>> > #8 - ? >>> > #9 - N/A >>> > #10 - In the first iteration of this feature I don't think it's an >>> > absolute necessity, but it's definitely a nice-to-have. The >>> > design/implementation should not preclude this from being >>> easily >>> > added in the future. >>> > >>> > Where "?" == "I'd like to think about it a bit more, but I have a gut >>> > feeling" >>> > >>> > Thoughts? >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.html >>> >>> >>> < >>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.ht >>> ml<http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.html> >>> < >>> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-October/015919.htm >>> l>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
