Valence integration
This specs proposes to integrate with OpenStack Valence to support compose node on the fly. Change-Id: Id890263db8a62c7c74a11eedf75c87b148afa546
This commit is contained in:
Zhenguo Niu
parent
26c5e79070
commit
605c0698c0
384
specs/pike/approved/template.rst
Normal file
384
specs/pike/approved/template.rst
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,384 @@
|
||||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
Example Spec - The title of your blueprint
|
||||
==========================================
|
||||
|
||||
Include the URL of your launchpad blueprint:
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mogan/+spec/example
|
||||
|
||||
Introduction paragraph -- why are we doing anything? A single paragraph of
|
||||
prose that operators can understand. The title and this first paragraph
|
||||
should be used as the subject line and body of the commit message
|
||||
respectively.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about the mogan-spec and blueprint process:
|
||||
|
||||
* Not all blueprints need a spec. For more information see
|
||||
http://docs.openstack.org/developer/mogan/blueprints.html#specs
|
||||
|
||||
* The aim of this document is first to define the problem we need to solve,
|
||||
and second agree the overall approach to solve that problem.
|
||||
|
||||
* This is not intended to be extensive documentation for a new feature.
|
||||
For example, there is no need to specify the exact configuration changes,
|
||||
nor the exact details of any DB model changes. But you should still define
|
||||
that such changes are required, and be clear on how that will affect
|
||||
upgrades.
|
||||
|
||||
* You should aim to get your spec approved before writing your code.
|
||||
While you are free to write prototypes and code before getting your spec
|
||||
approved, its possible that the outcome of the spec review process leads
|
||||
you towards a fundamentally different solution than you first envisaged.
|
||||
|
||||
* But, API changes are held to a much higher level of scrutiny.
|
||||
As soon as an API change merges, we must assume it could be in production
|
||||
somewhere, and as such, we then need to support that API change forever.
|
||||
To avoid getting that wrong, we do want lots of details about API changes
|
||||
upfront.
|
||||
|
||||
Some notes about using this template:
|
||||
|
||||
* Your spec should be in ReSTructured text, like this template.
|
||||
|
||||
* Please wrap text at 79 columns.
|
||||
|
||||
* The filename in the git repository should match the launchpad URL, for
|
||||
example a URL of: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mogan/+spec/awesome-thing
|
||||
should be named awesome-thing.rst
|
||||
|
||||
* Please do not delete any of the sections in this template. If you have
|
||||
nothing to say for a whole section, just write: None
|
||||
|
||||
* For help with syntax, see http://sphinx-doc.org/rest.html
|
||||
|
||||
* To test out your formatting, build the docs using tox and see the generated
|
||||
HTML file in doc/build/html/specs/<path_of_your_file>
|
||||
|
||||
* If you would like to provide a diagram with your spec, ascii diagrams are
|
||||
required. http://asciiflow.com/ is a very nice tool to assist with making
|
||||
ascii diagrams. The reason for this is that the tool used to review specs is
|
||||
based purely on plain text. Plain text will allow review to proceed without
|
||||
having to look at additional files which can not be viewed in gerrit. It
|
||||
will also allow inline feedback on the diagram itself.
|
||||
|
||||
* If your specification proposes any changes to the Mogan REST API such
|
||||
as changing parameters which can be returned or accepted, or even
|
||||
the semantics of what happens when a client calls into the API, then
|
||||
you should add the APIImpact flag to the commit message. Specifications with
|
||||
the APIImpact flag can be found with the following query:
|
||||
|
||||
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+project:openstack/mogan-specs+message:apiimpact,n,z
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
A detailed description of the problem. What problem is this blueprint
|
||||
addressing?
|
||||
|
||||
Use Cases
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
What use cases does this address? What impact on actors does this change have?
|
||||
Ensure you are clear about the actors in each use case: Developer, End User,
|
||||
Deployer etc.
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
Here is where you cover the change you propose to make in detail. How do you
|
||||
propose to solve this problem?
|
||||
|
||||
If this is one part of a larger effort make it clear where this piece ends. In
|
||||
other words, what's the scope of this effort?
|
||||
|
||||
At this point, if you would like to just get feedback on if the problem and
|
||||
proposed change fit in mogan, you can stop here and post this for review to get
|
||||
preliminary feedback. If so please say:
|
||||
Posting to get preliminary feedback on the scope of this spec.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
What other ways could we do this thing? Why aren't we using those? This doesn't
|
||||
have to be a full literature review, but it should demonstrate that thought has
|
||||
been put into why the proposed solution is an appropriate one.
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Changes which require modifications to the data model often have a wider impact
|
||||
on the system. The community often has strong opinions on how the data model
|
||||
should be evolved, from both a functional and performance perspective. It is
|
||||
therefore important to capture and gain agreement as early as possible on any
|
||||
proposed changes to the data model.
|
||||
|
||||
Questions which need to be addressed by this section include:
|
||||
|
||||
* What new data objects and/or database schema changes is this going to
|
||||
require?
|
||||
|
||||
* What database migrations will accompany this change.
|
||||
|
||||
* How will the initial set of new data objects be generated, for example if you
|
||||
need to take into account existing instances, or modify other existing data
|
||||
describe how that will work.
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Each API method which is either added or changed should have the following
|
||||
|
||||
* Specification for the method
|
||||
|
||||
* A description of what the method does suitable for use in
|
||||
user documentation
|
||||
|
||||
* Method type (POST/PUT/GET/DELETE)
|
||||
|
||||
* Normal http response code(s)
|
||||
|
||||
* Expected error http response code(s)
|
||||
|
||||
* A description for each possible error code should be included
|
||||
describing semantic errors which can cause it such as
|
||||
inconsistent parameters supplied to the method, or when an
|
||||
instance is not in an appropriate state for the request to
|
||||
succeed. Errors caused by syntactic problems covered by the JSON
|
||||
schema definition do not need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
* URL for the resource
|
||||
|
||||
* URL should not include underscores, and use hyphens instead.
|
||||
|
||||
* Parameters which can be passed via the url
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the request body data if allowed
|
||||
|
||||
* Field names should use snake_case style, not CamelCase or MixedCase
|
||||
style.
|
||||
|
||||
* JSON schema definition for the response body data if any
|
||||
|
||||
* Field names should use snake_case style, not CamelCase or MixedCase
|
||||
style.
|
||||
|
||||
* Example use case including typical API samples for both data supplied
|
||||
by the caller and the response
|
||||
|
||||
* Discuss any policy changes, and discuss what things a deployer needs to
|
||||
think about when defining their policy.
|
||||
|
||||
Note that the schema should be defined as restrictively as
|
||||
possible. Parameters which are required should be marked as such and
|
||||
only under exceptional circumstances should additional parameters
|
||||
which are not defined in the schema be permitted (eg
|
||||
additionaProperties should be False).
|
||||
|
||||
Reuse of existing predefined parameter types such as regexps for
|
||||
passwords and user defined names is highly encouraged.
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential security impact on the system. Some of the items to
|
||||
consider include:
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change touch sensitive data such as tokens, keys, or user data?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change alter the API in a way that may impact security, such as
|
||||
a new way to access sensitive information or a new way to login?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve cryptography or hashing?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change require the use of sudo or any elevated privileges?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change involve using or parsing user-provided data? This could
|
||||
be directly at the API level or indirectly such as changes to a cache layer.
|
||||
|
||||
* Can this change enable a resource exhaustion attack, such as allowing a
|
||||
single API interaction to consume significant server resources? Some examples
|
||||
of this include launching subprocesses for each connection, or entity
|
||||
expansion attacks in XML.
|
||||
|
||||
For more detailed guidance, please see the OpenStack Security Guidelines as
|
||||
a reference (https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Security/Guidelines). These
|
||||
guidelines are a work in progress and are designed to help you identify
|
||||
security best practices. For further information, feel free to reach out
|
||||
to the OpenStack Security Group at openstack-security@lists.openstack.org.
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications impact
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Please specify any changes to notifications. Be that an extra notification,
|
||||
changes to an existing notification, or removing a notification.
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Aside from the API, are there other ways a user will interact with this
|
||||
feature?
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this change have an impact on python-moganclient? What does the user
|
||||
interface there look like?
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Describe any potential performance impact on the system, for example
|
||||
how often will new code be called, and is there a major change to the calling
|
||||
pattern of existing code.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples of things to consider here include:
|
||||
|
||||
* A periodic task might look like a small addition but if it calls conductor or
|
||||
another service the load is multiplied by the number of nodes in the system.
|
||||
|
||||
* Scheduler filters get called once per host for every instance being created,
|
||||
so any latency they introduce is linear with the size of the system.
|
||||
|
||||
* A small change in a utility function or a commonly used decorator can have a
|
||||
large impacts on performance.
|
||||
|
||||
* Calls which result in a database queries (whether direct or via conductor)
|
||||
can have a profound impact on performance when called in critical sections of
|
||||
the code.
|
||||
|
||||
* Will the change include any locking, and if so what considerations are there
|
||||
on holding the lock?
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
Discuss things that will affect how you deploy and configure OpenStack
|
||||
that have not already been mentioned, such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* What config options are being added? Should they be more generic than
|
||||
proposed (for example a flag that other hypervisor drivers might want to
|
||||
implement as well)? Are the default values ones which will work well in
|
||||
real deployments?
|
||||
|
||||
* Is this a change that takes immediate effect after its merged, or is it
|
||||
something that has to be explicitly enabled?
|
||||
|
||||
* If this change is a new binary, how would it be deployed?
|
||||
|
||||
* Please state anything that those doing continuous deployment, or those
|
||||
upgrading from the previous release, need to be aware of. Also describe
|
||||
any plans to deprecate configuration values or features. For example, if we
|
||||
change the directory name that instances are stored in, how do we handle
|
||||
instance directories created before the change landed? Do we move them? Do
|
||||
we have a special case in the code? Do we assume that the operator will
|
||||
recreate all the instances in their cloud?
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Discuss things that will affect other developers working on OpenStack,
|
||||
such as:
|
||||
|
||||
* If the blueprint proposes a change to the driver API, discussion of how
|
||||
other hypervisors would implement the feature is required.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Who is leading the writing of the code? Or is this a blueprint where you're
|
||||
throwing it out there to see who picks it up?
|
||||
|
||||
If more than one person is working on the implementation, please designate the
|
||||
primary author and contact.
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
<launchpad-id or None>
|
||||
|
||||
Other contributors:
|
||||
<launchpad-id or None>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Work items or tasks -- break the feature up into the things that need to be
|
||||
done to implement it. Those parts might end up being done by different people,
|
||||
but we're mostly trying to understand the timeline for implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
* Include specific references to specs and/or blueprints in mogan, or in other
|
||||
projects, that this one either depends on or is related to.
|
||||
|
||||
* If this requires functionality of another project that is not currently used
|
||||
by Mogan, document that fact.
|
||||
|
||||
* Does this feature require any new library dependencies or code otherwise not
|
||||
included in OpenStack? Or does it depend on a specific version of library?
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Please discuss the important scenarios needed to test here, as well as
|
||||
specific edge cases we should be ensuring work correctly. For each
|
||||
scenario please specify if this requires specialized hardware, a full
|
||||
openstack environment, or can be simulated inside the Mogan tree.
|
||||
|
||||
Please discuss how the change will be tested. We especially want to know what
|
||||
tempest tests will be added. It is assumed that unit test coverage will be
|
||||
added so that doesn't need to be mentioned explicitly, but discussion of why
|
||||
you think unit tests are sufficient and we don't need to add more tempest
|
||||
tests would need to be included.
|
||||
|
||||
Is this untestable in gate given current limitations (specific hardware /
|
||||
software configurations available)? If so, are there mitigation plans (3rd
|
||||
party testing, gate enhancements, etc).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
Which audiences are affected most by this change, and which documentation
|
||||
titles on docs.openstack.org should be updated because of this change? Don't
|
||||
repeat details discussed above, but reference them here in the context of
|
||||
documentation for multiple audiences. For example, the Operations Guide targets
|
||||
cloud operators, and the End User Guide would need to be updated if the change
|
||||
offers a new feature available through the CLI or dashboard. If a config option
|
||||
changes or is deprecated, note here that the documentation needs to be updated
|
||||
to reflect this specification's change.
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
Please add any useful references here. You are not required to have any
|
||||
reference. Moreover, this specification should still make sense when your
|
||||
references are unavailable. Examples of what you could include are:
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to mailing list or IRC discussions
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to notes from a summit session
|
||||
|
||||
* Links to relevant research, if appropriate
|
||||
|
||||
* Related specifications as appropriate (e.g. if it's an EC2 thing, link the
|
||||
EC2 docs)
|
||||
|
||||
* Anything else you feel it is worthwhile to refer to
|
||||
|
||||
.. list-table:: Revisions
|
||||
:header-rows: 1
|
||||
|
||||
* - Release Name
|
||||
- Description
|
||||
* - Ocata
|
||||
- Introduced
|
||||
176
specs/pike/approved/valence-integration.rst
Normal file
176
specs/pike/approved/valence-integration.rst
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
|
||||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
===================
|
||||
Valence Integration
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/mogan/+spec/rsd-integration
|
||||
|
||||
The current Mogan implementation only supports pre-set configuration servers.
|
||||
For custom servers, Mogan should to be able to compose bare metal through
|
||||
integration with Valence that leverages the Redfish API to compose nodes using
|
||||
disaggregated resources.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Mogan currently can only provision pre-set configuration servers, but users may
|
||||
want to request a custom server with specific configurations like CPU, RAM, and
|
||||
DISK.
|
||||
|
||||
Use Cases
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
* An enterprise user wants to manage the RSD and general servers in a
|
||||
unified manner.
|
||||
|
||||
* An enterprise user wants to apply a custom server with CPU, RAM, and DISK
|
||||
specified himself.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
First, we need to refactor our flavor to pass Valence required parameters when
|
||||
composing a node, need to align with Valence team. But for non-rack servers
|
||||
we can keep the current way of scheduling a node to provision.
|
||||
|
||||
When a request come with the Valence specific flavor, We can invoke Valence to
|
||||
compose the node on the fly, then register the composed node into Ironic with
|
||||
Redfish driver(not supported yet). When nodes are enrolled in Ironic, there's
|
||||
no difference with non-rack nodes. And these works are all done before the
|
||||
current instance create workflow, so we can create a new taskflow [1]_ for
|
||||
Valence which includes compose and enroll tasks:
|
||||
|
||||
ComposeNodeTask:
|
||||
* execute: Invoke Valence to compose a node according the specified flavor.
|
||||
* revert: Release the composed node if there's something wrong when enrolling.
|
||||
|
||||
EnrollNodeTask:
|
||||
* execute: Enroll the composed node to Ironic.
|
||||
* revert: If some exception raised and the node has been enrolled, need to
|
||||
remove it from Ironic.
|
||||
|
||||
For Valence node, we should skip the scheduling task in provison workflow.
|
||||
Currently there are ScheduleCreateInstanceTask and OnFailureRescheduleTask,
|
||||
we can get rid of these two tasks when initialize the task flow in Valence
|
||||
scenario. Or maybe can handle this like select which node instances are
|
||||
launched(not supported yet).
|
||||
|
||||
Also, if there's some exception raised when provisioning, we should release the
|
||||
composed node to Valence pool and remove it from Ironic.
|
||||
|
||||
When deleting a node we should remove it from ironic first, then release the
|
||||
resources to Valence pool. For this, we can add a new field to instance to
|
||||
indicate whether it's a valence instance or not.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
It will automatically invoke valence to compose node if scheduling max attempts
|
||||
exceeds instead of using a specific flavor to indicate it's a Valence instance.
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed change will be add the following fields to the instance object
|
||||
with their data type and default value for migrations.
|
||||
|
||||
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
|
||||
| Field Name | Field Type | Migration Value |
|
||||
+=======================+==============+=================+
|
||||
| composed | bool | None |
|
||||
+-----------------------+--------------+-----------------+
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications impact
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
There's one potential performance impact on the instance creating process,
|
||||
as we need to composing the node from Valence first.
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
* As Mogan plans to support not only Ironic driver but also CloudBoot, need
|
||||
to figure out whether CloudBoot has supported Redfish already or there's not
|
||||
a plan to support it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
<niu-zglinux>
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
* Refactor flavor(instance type) to meet Valence's requirements.
|
||||
* Add `composed` filed to instance object.
|
||||
* Add a new taskflow for node composing and enrolling.
|
||||
* Change delete instance process to handle composed node gracefully.
|
||||
* Add Valence installation in Mogan devstack plugin as an option
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
* Need valence client to be ready to integrate.
|
||||
|
||||
* Redfish driver landed in ironic.
|
||||
|
||||
* Valence PodManager simulator need to be improved, maybe return a fake
|
||||
node(VM) and maybe we can test it with ssh driver before Redfish driver
|
||||
available.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
Unit Testing will be added.
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
Docs about Valence integration will be added.
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
.. [1] http://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TaskFlow
|
||||
|
||||
* https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Valence
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user