Writing from my phone... May I ask that before you proceed with any plan
that uses traits for state information that we have a hangout or
videoconference to discuss this? Unfortunately today and tomorrow I'm not
able to do a hangout but I can do one on Wednesday any time of the day.
Lemme know!
-jay
On Oct 23, 2017 5:01 AM, "Dmitry Tantsur" <dtant...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Jay!
>
> I appreciate your comments, but I think you're approaching the problem
> from purely VM point of view. Things simply don't work the same way in bare
> metal, at least not if we want to provide the same user experience.
>
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry for delay, took a week off before starting a new job. Comments
>> inline.
>>
>> On 10/16/2017 12:24 PM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I promised John to dump my thoughts on traits to the ML, so here we go :)
>>>
>>> I see two roles of traits (or kinds of traits) for bare metal:
>>> 1. traits that say what the node can do already (e.g. "the node is
>>> doing UEFI boot")
>>> 2. traits that say what the node can be *configured* to do (e.g. "the
>>> node can
>>> boot in UEFI mode")
>>>
>>
>> There's only one role for traits. #2 above. #1 is state information.
>> Traits are not for state information. Traits are only for communicating
>> capabilities of a resource provider (baremetal node).
>>
>
> These are not different, that's what I'm talking about here. No users care
> about the difference between "this node was put in UEFI mode by an operator
> in advance", "this node was put in UEFI mode by an ironic driver on demand"
> and "this node is always in UEFI mode, because it's AARCH64 and it does not
> have BIOS". These situation produce the same result (the node is booted in
> UEFI mode), and thus it's up to ironic to hide this difference.
>
> My suggestion with traits is one way to do it, I'm not sure what you
> suggest though.
>
>
>>
>> For example, let's say we add the following to the os-traits library [1]
>>
>> * STORAGE_RAID_0
>> * STORAGE_RAID_1
>> * STORAGE_RAID_5
>> * STORAGE_RAID_6
>> * STORAGE_RAID_10
>>
>> The Ironic administrator would add all RAID-related traits to the
>> baremetal nodes that had the *capability* of supporting that particular
>> RAID setup [2]
>>
>> When provisioned, the baremetal node would either have RAID configured in
>> a certain level or not configured at all.
>>
>
>> A very important note: the Placement API and Nova scheduler (or future
>> Ironic scheduler) doesn't care about this. At all. I know it sounds like
>> I'm being callous, but I'm not. Placement and scheduling doesn't care about
>> the state of things. It only cares about the capabilities of target
>> destinations. That's it.
>>
>
> Yes, because VMs always start with a clean state, and hypervisor is there
> to ensure that. We don't have this luxury in ironic :) E.g. our SNMP driver
> is not even aware of boot modes (or RAID, or BIOS configuration), which
> does not mean that a node using it cannot be in UEFI mode (have a RAID or
> BIOS pre-configured, etc, etc).
>
>
>>
>> This seems confusing, but it's actually very useful. Say, I have a flavor
>>> that
>>> requests UEFI boot via a trait. It will match both the nodes that are
>>> already in
>>> UEFI mode, as well as nodes that can be put in UEFI mode.
>>>
>>
>> No :) It will only match nodes that have the UEFI capability. The set of
>> providers that have the ability to be booted via UEFI is *always* a
>> superset of the set of providers that *have been booted via UEFI*.
>> Placement and scheduling decisions only care about that superset -- the
>> providers with a particular capability.
>>
>
> Well, no, it will. Again, you're purely basing on the VM idea, where a VM
> is always *put* in UEFI mode, no matter how the hypervisor looks like. It
> is simply not the case for us. You have to care what state the node is,
> because many drivers cannot change this state.
>
>
>>
>> This idea goes further with deploy templates (new concept we've been
>>> thinking
>>> about). A flavor can request something like CUSTOM_RAID_5, and it will
>>> match the
>>> nodes that already have RAID 5, or, more interestingly, the nodes on
>>> which we
>>> can build RAID 5 before deployment. The UEFI example above can be
>>> treated in a
>>> similar way.
>>>
>>> This ends up with two sources of knowledge about traits in ironic:
>>> 1. Operators setting something they know about hardware ("this node is
>>> in UEFI
>>> mode"),
>>> 2. Ironic drivers reporting something they
>>> 2.1. know about hardware ("this node is in UEFI mode" - again)
>>> 2.2. can do about hardware ("I can put this node in UEFI mode")
>>>
>>
>> You're correct that both pieces of information are important. However,
>> only the "can do about hardware" part is relevant to Placement and Nova.
>>
>> For case #1 we are planning on a new CRUD API to set/unset traits for a
>>> node.
>>>
>>
>> I would *strongly* advise against this. Traits are not for state
>> information.
>>
>> Instead, consider having a DB (or JSON) schema that lists state
>> information in fields that are explicitly for that state information.
>>
>> For example, a schema that looks like this:
>>
>> {
>> "boot": {
>> "mode": <one of 'bios' or 'uefi'>,
>> "params": <dict>
>> },
>> "disk": {
>> "raid": {
>> "level": <int>,
>> "controller": <one of 'sw' or 'hw'>,
>> "driver": <string>,
>> "params": <dict>
>> }, ...
>> },
>> "network": {
>> ...
>> }
>> }
>>
>> etc, etc.
>>
>> Don't use trait strings to represent state information.
>>
>
> I don't see an alternative proposal that will satisfy what we have to
> solve.
>
>
>>
>> Best,
>> -jay
>>
>> Case #2 is more interesting. We have two options, I think:
>>>
>>> a) Operators still set traits on nodes, drivers are simply validating
>>> them. E.g.
>>> an operators sets CUSTOM_RAID_5, and the node's RAID interface checks if
>>> it is
>>> possible to do. The downside is obvious - with a lot of deploy templates
>>> available it can be a lot of manual work.
>>>
>>> b) Drivers report the traits, and they get somehow added to the traits
>>> provided
>>> by an operator. Technically, there are sub-cases again:
>>> b.1) The new traits API returns a union of operator-provided and
>>> driver-provided traits
>>> b.2) The new traits API returns only operator-provided traits;
>>> driver-provided
>>> traits are returned e.g. via a new field (node.driver_traits). Then nova
>>> will
>>> have to merge the lists itself.
>>>
>>> My personal favorite is the last option: I'd like a clear distinction
>>> between
>>> different "sources" of traits, but I'd also like to reduce manual work
>>> for
>>> operators.
>>>
>>> A valid counter-argument is: what if an operator wants to override a
>>> driver-provided trait? E.g. a node can do RAID 5, but I don't want this
>>> particular node to do it for any reason. I'm not sure if it's a valid
>>> case, and
>>> what to do about it.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>
>>> Dmitry
>>>
>>
>> [1] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/os-traits/tree/
>> [2] Based on how many attached disks the node had, the presence and
>> abilities of a hardware RAID controller, etc
>>
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> ______________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscrib
>> e
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
