+1 for ServerGroup quotas. It's been a while since this feature is
discussed and approved. As a public cloud provider we really want to get
ServerGroup into production. However, without quotas it is more harm than
gain. Since ServerGroup (and even its novaclient's command) is merged in
Icehouse, IM
Dear all,
I'm very interested in this subject as well. Actually there is also a
discussion of the possibility of an independent scheduler in the mailisg list:
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-November/019518.html
Would it be possible to discuss about this subject in the ne
> > The first stage is technical - move Nova scheduling code from A to be.
> > What do we achieve - not much - we actually complicate things - there
> > is always churn in Nova and we will have duplicate code bases. In
> > addition to this the only service that can actually make use of they
> > is
us we were thrilled to hear your
proposal.
PS: I've written in a mail expressing our interest in this topic earlier ,
but I feel it's better
to have an more "official submission" to join the team :)
Best regards,
Jerome Gallard & Khanh-Toan Tran
> -Message
> Exactly - that's why I wanted to start this debate about the way forward
> for the
> Pcloud Blueprint, which was heading into some kind of middle ground. As
> per
> my original post, and it sounds like the three of us are at least aligned
> I'm
> proposing to spilt this into two streams:
>
>
Dear all,
If we have time, I would like to discuss our new blueprint:
Policy-Based-Scheduler:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-based-scheduler
whose code is ready for review:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/61386/
Best regards,
Toan
- Original Message -
From
constraints & cost
function for Solver Scheduler to solve. More detailed will be found in the
doc.
I look forward for comments and hope that we can work it out.
Best regards,
Khanh-Toan TRAN
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack
There is an unexpected line break in the middle of the link, so I post it
again:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RfP7jRsw1mXMjd7in72ARjK0fTrsQv1bqolOri
IQB2Y
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Khanh-Toan Tran [mailto:khanh-toan.t...@cloudwatt.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 29 janv
ed a scheduling configuration/decision per Pclouds. It can be
done easily by defining a policy to each Pclouds. Future development of
the policy system will even allow users to define their own rules in their
Pclouds!
Best regards,
Khanh-Toan Tran
___
OpenS
[2]
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/scheduler/filters/ram_f
ilter.py#L75
2014-01-30 Khanh-Toan Tran
There is an unexpected line break in the middle of the link, so I post it
again:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RfP7jRsw1mXMjd7in72ARjK0fTrsQv1bqol
n
now be positioned as an improvement of the placement advisor. Similarly, the
solver-scheduler blueprint can be positioned as an improvement of the placement
engine.
I'm working on a wiki page that will get into the details.
Would appreciate your initial thoughts on this approach.
Regards,
s)"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:05:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Scheduler] Policy Based Scheduler and
> Solver Scheduler
>
> > From: Khanh-Toan Tran
> ...
> > There is an unexpected line break in the middle of the link, so I post
> i
stack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Objet : Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova][Scheduler] Policy Based Scheduler and
Solver
> Scheduler
>
> On 02/10/2014 10:54 AM, Khanh-Toan Tran wrote:
>
> > Heat
> > may orchestrate the provisioning process, but eventually the instances
> > will
> In that model, we would pass a bunch of information about multiple
> resources to the solver scheduler, have it perform scheduling *and
> reserve the resources*, then return some kind of resource reservation
> tokens back to the caller for each resource. The caller could then
> allocate each
1, 2014 at 7:09 PM, Chris Friesen
wrote:
On 02/11/2014 03:21 AM, Khanh-Toan Tran wrote:
Second, there is nothing wrong with booting the instances (or
instantiating other
resources) as separate commands as long as we support some kind of
reservation token.
I'm not sure what reservation toke
> Agreed. I'm just thinking on the opportunity of providing a REST API
> on top of the scheduler RPC API with a 1:1 matching, so that the Gantt
> project would step up by itself. I don't think it's a hard stuff,
provided I
> already did that stuff for Climate (providing Pecan/WSME API). What
>
> > I could do that but I think I need to be able to scale more without
> > the need to use this much resources. I will like to simulate a cloud
> > of 100 maybe
> > 1000 compute nodes that do nothing (Fake driver) this should not take
> > this much memory. Anyone knows of a more efficient way to
ing a 4 Gig 4 CPU VM. I suspect
your
> physical system is much more equipped.
>
> Regards,
> David Peraza | Openstack Solutions Architect
david_per...@persistentsys.com |
> Cell: (305)766-2520 Persistent Systems Inc. | Partners in Innovation
> | www.persistentsys.com
>
> -Or
Hi all,
I've made an analyse a while a go how to use SolverScheduler with a policy
engine:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RfP7jRsw1mXMjd7in72ARjK0fTrsQv1bqolOriIQB2Y
Basically there should be a plugin that translates the policy into constraints
for
solver to solve. This was made using Pol
Dear all,
If we have time, I would like to take your attention to my new patch:
Policy-based Scheduling engine
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97503/
This patch implements Policy-Based Scheduler blueprint:
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/nova/+spec/policy-based-scheduler
I presented its prot
The slides of the Atlanta presentation is here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B598PxJUvPrwMXpWYUtWOGRTckE
It contains our vision on scheduling which sets foot for the integration
with Tetris and Congress.
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Khanh-Toan Tran [mailto:k
- Original Message -
> From: "Sangeeta Singh"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 9:50:00 PM
> Subject: [openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler] Availability Zones and Host
> aggregates..
>
> Hi,
>
> The availability Zones
regates..
>
>
>
> On 3/26/14, 10:17 AM, "Khanh-Toan Tran"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >- Original Message -
> >> From: "Sangeeta Singh"
> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
Khanh-Toan Tran
:
- Original Message -
> From: "Sangeeta Singh"
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 6:54:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][scheduler] Availability Zones and
Host agg
tes..
>
> Le 27/03/2014 10:37, Khanh-Toan Tran a écrit :
> >
> > - Original Message -
> >> From: "Sangeeta Singh"
> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> >>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, Mar
+1 for AZs not sharing hosts.
Because its the only mechanism that allows us to segment the datacenter.
Otherwise we cannot provide redundancy to client except using Region which
is dedicated infrastructure and networked separated and anti-affinity
filter which IMO is not pragmatic as it has ten
+1 for AZs not sharing hosts.
Because its the only mechanism that allows us to segment the datacenter.
Otherwise we cannot provide redundancy to client except using Region which
is dedicated infrastructure and networked separated and anti-affinity
filter which IMO is not pragmatic as it has tende
Dual-room link:
[1] IBM and Cisco: Together for a World Class Data Center, Page 141.
http://books.google.fr/books?id=DHjJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q&f=false
> -Message d'origine-----
> De : Khanh-Toan Tran [mailto:khanh-toan.t...@cloudwatt.com]
> Envoyé : je
01:02
À : OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Objet : Re: [openstack-dev] [Nova] Hosts within two Availability Zones :
possible or not ?
On 3 April 2014 08:21, Khanh-Toan Tran
wrote:
Otherwise we cannot provide redundancy to client except using Region which
is dedicated
have AntiAffinity as a filter. Otherwise
what is it good for if users do not know if their anti-affiniti-ed VMs are
hosted in different hosts. I prefer the idea of anti-affinity quota. May
propose that.
> > From: Khanh-Toan Tran [mailto:khanh-toan.t...@cloudwatt.com]
> > Sent: 08
lobal (concerning all
resources), local (concerning a group of resources), or tenant-specific.
Please don't hesitate to contact us for discussion, all your comments are
welcomed!
Best regards,
Khanh-Toan TRAN
Cloudwatt
Email: khanh-toan.tran[at]cloudwatt.com
892 Rue Yves Kermen
92100 BOULOGNE-B
e review
cycle, and hopefully will finalize the details at the summit and will be
able to continue & finish the implementation in Icehouse. Would be great
to collaborate.
Regards,
Alex
From: Khanh-Toan Tran
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org,
Date: 16/10/2013 01:4
I'm not sure it's a good moment for this but I would like to re-open the topic
a little bit.
Just a small idea: is it OK if we use a file, or a database as a central point
to store the policies
and their associated aggregates? The Scheduler reads it first, then calls the
scheduler drivers
lis
I didn't see any command referring InstanceGroupMemberConnection. What is it
exactly? Could you give an example?
And how can we create an InstanceGroup?
1) Create an empty group
2) Add policy, metadata
3) Add group instances
... ?
or in the InstanceGroup POST message there is already a descr
Hi Yathi,
Thank you for yor example. I have some remarks concerning the JSON format:
1) Member of a group is recursive. A member can be group or an instance. In
this case there are two different declaration formats for members, as with
http-server-group-1 ("name, "policy", "edge") and Http-Serv
Hi all,
As a newbie of the community, I'm not familiar with unittest and how to use it
here. I've learned that Jenkins runs tests
everytime we submit some code. But how to write the test and what is a 'good
test' and a 'bad test'? I saw some commits
in gerrit but am unable to say if the written
Hey thanks a lot!
- Original Message -
From: "Clint Byrum"
To: "openstack-dev"
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 7:49:55 PM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] When is it okay for submitters to say 'I don't
want to add tests' ?
Excerpts from Khanh-Toan Tran's message of 2013-10-31 07:22:06
FYI, by default Openstack overcommit CPU 1:16, meaning it can host 16 times
number of cores it possesses. As mentioned Alex, you can change it by enabling
AggregateCoreFilter in nova.conf:
scheduler_default_filters =
and modifying the overcommit ratio by adding:
cpu_allocation_ratio=1.0
Ju
Hi all,
Having no info from the HK summit on this topic, I would like to re-open it in
the mailing list.
My concerns with the API is that it does not refer to a particular (scheduling)
component. In my
understanding, it comes along with the SolverScheduler proposal. However, we
does not k
oop is not suitable if we
want to use an unused power of OpenStack cluster to run Hadoop analytic jobs.
Possibly in this case it is better to modify the over-commit calculation in the
scheduler according John suggestion.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Khanh-Toan Tran <
khanh-toan.t...@clo
John Garbutt
To:"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
,
Date:14/11/2013 04:57 PM
Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [nova] Configure overcommit policy
_
On 13 November 2013 14:51, Khanh-Toan Tran
wrote:
> Well, I don't know wh
Boris,
>>> Is it really OK to drop these tables? Could Nova can work without them
(e.g. rollback)? And if Ceilometer is about to ask nova for host state
metrics ?
>>> Yes it is OK, because now ceilometer and other projects could ask
scheduler about host state. (I don't see any problems)
IMO,
42 matches
Mail list logo
