On 18 Aug 2016, at 22:48, Michael Still <mi...@stillhq.com<mailto:mi...@stillhq.com>> wrote:
Shelved instances still consume IPs and hypervisor disk IIRC, so they're not free for nova. So, there has to be some form of accounting of shelved instances to stop resource exhaustion, especially in the IP space. I'm not opposed to removing most of their cost from quota, but I don't think we can do it entirely. Michael Once offloaded, the only resources consumed are in Glance and the IP reservation. I do not know if the IP reservation counts in the Neutron ports quota though. I was aiming to distinguish between quota and cost, I would expect a public cloud provider to bill for the space used in Glance to avoid repeated snapshotting. The exact timing of the quota reduction is also for debate. The resource provider only sees the benefit when the resource is offloaded but from the user perspective, the expectation would be that the quota is available once the user request is completed (i.e. shelved). However, the resources are still being used at this point until the offload time is reached. Tim On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 3:50 AM, Tim Bell <tim.b...@cern.ch<mailto:tim.b...@cern.ch>> wrote: I was interested to establish a consensus that - Shelved instances should not be part of the users quota - Quota in Glance (and associated chargeback if appropriate) is needed Glance space for us is much less expensive than people leaving their instances running. Equally, terminating a user’s inactive VM would not be popular so giving them a shelved instance would allow them to re-create it much more easily. Any objections to a blueprint that proposes shelving should be handled with the same quota model as snapshotting ? Tim On 18/08/16 19:43, "Jonathan D. Proulx" <j...@csail.mit.edu<mailto:j...@csail.mit.edu>> wrote: On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 03:24:28PM +0000, Tim Bell wrote: : :We’re having a look at VM shelving for the CERN community and struggling to find a motivation for a private cloud user to shelve their instances (and free up resources they may be only using infrequently). : :The problem is that shelved instances seem to still be included in the user’s quota. Without internal billing, the best motivation for users to shelve would be to allow them to maximize the use of their quota. : :Have any other sites used shelving extensively ? How did you motivate your users to shelve unused resources? Hi Tim, We've just started looking at this and for simialar reasons. I agree we should remove shelved resources from project quota. Shelved instances do still hold some storage resources so there may need to be new quota to accoutn for that some how... Currently the only motivation for our users to shelve is to get me to stop pestering them. We're considering policy based enforced shelving (based on some yet to be defined utilization metrics) but that's only a idea at this point not a plan. -Jon _______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators -- Rackspace Australia
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-operators mailing list OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
