Le 01/07/2014 11:09, Tim Bell a écrit : >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Lisa [mailto:lisa.zangra...@pd.infn.it] >> Sent: 01 July 2014 10:45 >> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler] Proposal: FairShareScheduler. >> >> Hi Tim, >> >> for sure this is one of the main issues we are facing and the approach you >> suggested is the same we are investigating on. >> Could you provide some details about the Heat proxy renew mechanism? >> Thank you very much for your feedback. >> Cheers, >> Lisa >> >> > I was thinking about how the Keystone Trusts mechanism could be used ... > https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Keystone/Trusts. Heat was looking to use > something like this > (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/Blueprints/InstanceUsers#1._Use_credentials_associated_with_a_trust) > > Maybe one of the Keystone experts could advise how tokens could be renewed in > such a scenario. > > Tim
Tim, you can review https://github.com/stackforge/blazar/blob/master/climate/utils/trusts.py if you want to see an implementation proposal for trusts. -Sylvain > > On 01/07/2014 08:46, Tim Bell wrote: >> Eric, >> >> Thanks for sharing your work, it looks like an interesting development. >> >> I was wondering how the Keystone token expiry is handled since the tokens >> generally have a 1 day validity. If the request is scheduling for more than >> one day, it would no longer have a valid token. We have similar scenarios >> with Kerberos/AFS credentials in the CERN batch system. There are some >> interesting proxy renew approaches used by Heat to get tokens at a later >> date which may be useful for this problem. >> >> $ nova credentials >> +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | Token | Value >> | >> +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | expires | 2014-07-02T06:39:59Z >> | >> | id | 1a819279121f4235a8d85c694dea5e9e >> | >> | issued_at | 2014-07-01T06:39:59.385417 >> | >> | tenant | {"id": "841615a3-ece9-4622-9fa0-fdc178ed34f8", "enabled": >> true, | >> | | "description": "Personal Project for user timbell", "name": >> | >> | | "Personal timbell"} >> | >> +-----------+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> Tim >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Eric Frizziero [mailto:eric.frizzi...@pd.infn.it] >>> Sent: 30 June 2014 16:05 >>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler] Proposal: FairShareScheduler. >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> we have analyzed the nova-scheduler component (FilterScheduler) in our >>> Openstack installation used by some scientific teams. >>> >>> In our scenario, the cloud resources need to be distributed among the teams >>> by >>> considering the predefined share (e.g. quota) assigned to each team, the >>> portion >>> of the resources currently used and the resources they have already >>> consumed. >>> >>> We have observed that: >>> 1) User requests are sequentially processed (FIFO scheduling), i.e. >>> FilterScheduler doesn't provide any dynamic priority algorithm; >>> 2) User requests that cannot be satisfied (e.g. if resources are not >>> available) fail and will be lost, i.e. on that scenario nova-scheduler >>> doesn't >>> provide any queuing of the requests; >>> 3) OpenStack simply provides a static partitioning of resources among >>> various >>> projects / teams (use of quotas). If project/team 1 in a period is >>> systematically >>> underutilizing its quota and the project/team 2 instead is systematically >>> saturating its quota, the only solution to give more resource to >>> project/team 2 is >>> a manual change (to be done by the admin) to the related quotas. >>> >>> The need to find a better approach to enable a more effective scheduling in >>> Openstack becomes more and more evident when the number of the user >>> requests to be handled increases significantly. This is a well known problem >>> which has already been solved in the past for the Batch Systems. >>> >>> In order to solve those issues in our usage scenario of Openstack, we have >>> developed a prototype of a pluggable scheduler, named FairShareScheduler, >>> with the objective to extend the existing OpenStack scheduler >>> (FilterScheduler) >>> by integrating a (batch like) dynamic priority algorithm. >>> >>> The architecture of the FairShareScheduler is explicitly designed to >>> provide a >>> high scalability level. To all user requests will be assigned a priority >>> value >>> calculated by considering the share allocated to the user by the >>> administrator >>> and the evaluation of the effective resource usage consumed in the recent >>> past. >>> All requests will be inserted in a priority queue, and processed in >>> parallel by a >>> configurable pool of workers without interfering with the priority order. >>> Moreover all significant information (e.g. priority queue) will be stored >>> in a >>> persistence layer in order to provide a fault tolerance mechanism while a >>> proper >>> logging system will annotate all relevant events, useful for auditing >>> processing. >>> >>> In more detail, some features of the FairshareScheduler are: >>> a) It assigns dynamically the proper priority to every new user requests; >>> b) The priority of the queued requests will be recalculated periodically >>> using the >>> fairshare algorithm. This feature guarantees the usage of the cloud >>> resources is >>> distributed among users and groups by considering the portion of the cloud >>> resources allocated to them (i.e. share) and the resources already consumed; >>> c) all user requests will be inserted in a (persistent) priority queue and >>> then >>> processed asynchronously by the dedicated process (filtering + weighting >>> phase) >>> when compute resources are available; >>> d) From the client point of view the queued requests remain in "Scheduling" >>> state till the compute resources are available. No new states added: this >>> prevents any possible interaction issue with the Openstack clients; >>> e) User requests are dequeued by a pool of WorkerThreads (configurable), >>> i.e. >>> no sequential processing of the requests; >>> f) The failed requests at filtering + weighting phase may be inserted again >>> in the >>> queue for n-times (configurable). >>> >>> We have integrated the FairShareScheduler in our Openstack installation >>> (release "HAVANA"). We're now working to adapt the FairShareScheduler to the >>> new release "IceHouse". >>> >>> Does anyone have experiences in those issues found in our cloud scenario? >>> >>> Could the FairShareScheduler be useful for the Openstack community? >>> In that case, we'll be happy to share our work. >>> >>> Any feedback/comment is welcome! >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Eric. >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
