On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Loic Dachary <l...@enovance.com> wrote:
> On 04/30/2012 08:03 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@enovance.com> wrote: > >> On 04/30/2012 03:49 PM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 6:46 AM, Loic Dachary <l...@enovance.com> wrote: >> >>> On 04/30/2012 12:15 PM, Loic Dachary wrote: >>> > We could start a discussion from the content of the following sections: >>> > >>> > http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering#Counters >>> I think the rationale of the counter aggregation needs to be explained. >>> My understanding is that the metering system will be able to deliver the >>> following information: 10 floating IPv4 addresses were allocated to the >>> tenant during three months and were leased from provider NNN. From this, >>> the billing system could add a line to the invoice : 10 IPv4, $N each = >>> $10xN because it has been configured to invoice each IPv4 leased from >>> provider NNN for $N. >>> >>> It is not the purpose of the metering system to display each IPv4 used, >>> therefore it only exposes the aggregated information. The counters define >>> how the information should be aggregated. If the idea was to expose each >>> resource usage individually, defining counters would be meaningless as they >>> would duplicate the activity log from each OpenStack component. >>> >>> What do you think ? >>> >> >> At DreamHost we are going to want to show each individual resource (the >> IPv4 address, the instance, etc.) along with the charge information. Having >> the metering system aggregate that data will make it difficult/impossible >> to present the bill summary and detail views that we want. It would be much >> more useful for us if it tracked the usage details for each resource, and >> let us aggregate the data ourselves. >> >> If other vendors want to show the data differently, perhaps we should >> provide separate APIs for retrieving the detailed and aggregate data. >> >> Doug >> >> Hi, >> >> For the record, here is the unfinished conversation we had on IRC >> >> (04:29:06 PM) dhellmann: dachary, did you see my reply about counter >> definitions on the list today? >> (04:39:05 PM) dachary: It means some counters must not be aggregated. >> Only the amount associated with it is but there is one counter per IP. >> (04:55:01 PM) dachary: dhellmann: what about this :the id of the >> ressource controls the agregation of all counters : if it is missing, all >> resources of the same kind and their measures are aggregated. Otherwise >> only the measures are agreggated. >> http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering?action=diff&rev2=40&rev1=39 >> (04:55:58 PM) dachary: it makes me a little unconfortable to define such >> an "ad-hoc" grouping >> (04:56:53 PM) dachary: i.e. you actuall control the aggregation by >> chosing which value to put in the id column >> (04:58:43 PM) dachary: s/actuall/actually/ >> (05:05:38 PM) ***dachary reading http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.98.pdf >> (05:05:54 PM) dachary: I feel like we're trying to resolve a non problem >> here >> (05:08:42 PM) dachary: values need to be aggregated. The raw input is a >> full description of the resource and a value ( gauge ). The question is how >> to control the aggregation in a reasonably flexible way. >> (05:11:34 PM) dachary: The definition of a counter could probably be >> described as : the id of a resource and code to fill each column associated >> with it. >> >> I tried to append the following, but the wiki kept failing. >> >> Propose that the counters are defined by a function instead of being >> fixed. That helps addressing the issue of aggregating the bandwidth >> associated to a given IP into a single counter. >> >> Alternate idea : >> * a counter is defined by >> * a name ( o1, n2, etc. ) that uniquely identifies the nature of the >> measure ( outbound internet transit, amount of RAM, etc. ) >> * the component in which it can be found ( nova, swift etc.) >> * and by columns, each one is set with the result of >> aggregate(find(record),record) where >> * find() looks for the existing column as found by selecting with the >> unique key ( maybe the name and the resource id ) >> * record is a detailed description of the metering event to be >> aggregated ( >> http://wiki.openstack.org/SystemUsageData#compute.instance.exists: ) >> * the aggregate() function returns the updated row. By default it just >> += the counter value with the old row returned by find() >> > > Would we want aggregation to occur within the database where we are > collecting events, or should that move somewhere else? > > I assume the events collected by the metering agents will all be archived > for auditing (or re-building the database) > http://wiki.openstack.org/EfficientMetering?action=diff&rev2=45&rev1=44 > > Therefore the aggregation should occur when the database is updated to > account for a new event. > > Does this make sense ? I may have misunderstood part of your question. > I guess what I don't understand is why the aggregated data is written back to the metering database at all. If it's in the same database, it seems like it should be in a different "table" (or equivalent) so the original data is left alone. Maybe it's time to start focusing these discussions on user stories?
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
