+operators (I forgot)
On 6/7/2018 1:07 PM, Matt Riedemann wrote:
On 6/7/2018 12:56 PM, melanie witt wrote:
Recently, we've received interest about increasing the maximum number
of allowed volumes to attach to a single instance > 26. The limit of
26 is because of a historical limitation in libvirt (if I remember
correctly) and is no longer limited at the libvirt level in the
present day. So, we're looking at providing a way to attach more than
26 volumes to a single instance and we want your feedback.
The 26 volumes thing is a libvirt driver restriction.
There was a bug at one point because powervm (or powervc) was capping
out at 80 volumes per instance because of restrictions in the
build_requests table in the API DB:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1621138
They wanted to get to 128, because that's how power rolls.
We'd like to hear from operators and users about their use cases for
wanting to be able to attach a large number of volumes to a single
instance. If you could share your use cases, it would help us greatly
in moving forward with an approach for increasing the maximum.
Some ideas that have been discussed so far include:
A) Selecting a new, higher maximum that still yields reasonable
performance on a single compute host (64 or 128, for example). Pros:
helps prevent the potential for poor performance on a compute host
from attaching too many volumes. Cons: doesn't let anyone opt-in to a
higher maximum if their environment can handle it.
B) Creating a config option to let operators choose how many volumes
allowed to attach to a single instance. Pros: lets operators opt-in to
a maximum that works in their environment. Cons: it's not discoverable
for those calling the API.
I'm not a fan of a non-discoverable config option which will impact API
behavior indirectly, i.e. on cloud A I can boot from volume with 64
volumes but not on cloud B.
C) Create a configurable API limit for maximum number of volumes to
attach to a single instance that is either a quota or similar to a
quota. Pros: lets operators opt-in to a maximum that works in their
environment. Cons: it's yet another quota?
This seems the most reasonable to me if we're going to do this, but I'm
probably in the minority. Yes more quota limits sucks, but it's (1)
discoverable by API users and therefore (2) interoperable.
If we did the quota thing, I'd probably default to unlimited and let the
cinder volume quota cap it for the project as it does today. Then admins
can tune it as needed.
--
Thanks,
Matt
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators
