Someone told The Register that Nebula's goal was 1M hosts, 60M VMs: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/04/ubuntu_goes_openstack/
(We don't have to stick to that, of course!) Ewan. > -----Original Message----- > From: openstack-bounces+ewan.mellor=citrix....@lists.launchpad.net > [mailto:openstack-bounces+ewan.mellor=citrix....@lists.launchpad.net] > On Behalf Of Rick Clark > Sent: 30 December 2010 17:42 > To: Erik Carlin > Cc: openstack@lists.launchpad.net > Subject: Re: [Openstack] Some insight into the number of instances Nova > needs to spin up... > > Actually it was 1M hosts and Ivthink 45 million vms. It was meant to > be across all regions. Jason Seats set the number arbitrarily, but it > is a good target to not let us forget about scaling while we design. > > I think eventually all loads will be more ephemeral. So, I think I > agree with your numbers, if you are talking about a single availability > zone. > > On 12/30/2010 11:25 AM, Erik Carlin wrote: > > You are right. The 1M number was VMs not hosts. At least, that was > > from one scale discussion we had within Rackspace. I'm not sure what > > the "official" nova target limits are and I can't find anything on > > launchpad that defines it. If there is something, could someone > > please send me a link. > > > > I'm am certain that Google can manage more than 10K physical servers > > per DC. Rackspace does this today. > > > > If I combine what I know about EC2 and Cloud Servers, I would set the > > ROM scale targets as: > > > > ABSOLUTE > > 1M VMs > > 50K hosts > > > > RATE > > 500K transactions/day (create/delete server, list servers, resize > > server, etc. - granted, some are more expensive than others) That > > works out to ~21K/hr but it won't be evenly distributed. To allow > for > > peak, I would say something like 75K/hour or ~21/sec. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Erik > > > > > > On 12/30/10 9:20 AM, "Pete Zaitcev" <zait...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 19:27:09 +0000 > >> Erik Carlin <erik.car...@rackspace.com> wrote: > >> > >>> The 1M host limit still seems reasonable to me. [] > >> > >> In my opinion, such numbers are completely out of whack. Google's > >> Chubby article says that the busiest Chubby has 90,000 clients (not > >> hosts!) and the biggest datacenter has 10,000 systems. They found > >> such numbers pushing the border of unmanageable. Granted they did > not > >> use virtualization, but we're talking the number of boxes in both > cases. > >> > >> So to reach 1M hosts in a Nova instance you have to have it manage > >> 100 datacenters. There are going to be calls for federation of Novas > >> long before this number is reached. > >> > >> Sustaining a high flap rate is a worthy goal and will have an > >> important practical impact. And having realistic sizing ideas is > >> going to help it. > >> > >> -- Pete > > > > > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message (including any attached > or > > embedded documents) is intended for the exclusive and confidential > use > > of the individual or entity to which this message is addressed, and > > unless otherwise expressly indicated, is confidential and privileged > information of Rackspace. > > Any dissemination, distribution or copying of the enclosed material > is prohibited. > > If you receive this transmission in error, please notify us > > immediately by e-mail at ab...@rackspace.com, and delete the original > message. > > Your cooperation is appreciated. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net > > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack > > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
