Add spec for instance reservation
Change-Id: I03315216c3a6203e088e914ffb9fedf1e672d732 Partially-Implements: blueprint new-instance-reservation
This commit is contained in:
parent
f3a70837e2
commit
2e9466d904
493
doc/source/devref/specs/pike/new-instance-reservation.rst
Normal file
493
doc/source/devref/specs/pike/new-instance-reservation.rst
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,493 @@
|
||||
..
|
||||
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported
|
||||
License.
|
||||
|
||||
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode
|
||||
|
||||
========================
|
||||
New instance reservation
|
||||
========================
|
||||
|
||||
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/blazar/+spec/new-instance-reservation
|
||||
|
||||
Telecom operators want to keep instance slots for varied reasons, such as
|
||||
planned scale-out, maintenance works, Disaster Recovery, etc., and for high
|
||||
priority VNF service on hypervisors in a specific time window in order to
|
||||
accept an expected workload increase in their network, such as big events,
|
||||
sports games, etc. On the other hand, they also need to keep some free
|
||||
instance slots or hypervisors for non-planned scale-out against unexpected
|
||||
workload increases, such as bursty traffic.
|
||||
|
||||
Public cloud users often get the impression of unlimited resources in
|
||||
OpenStack, like instances and hypervisors, because of the scale of public
|
||||
cloud providers, but the resources are in reality limited. Operators need
|
||||
to handle the inconsistency.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Problem description
|
||||
===================
|
||||
|
||||
Some problems are well described in the Capacity Management development
|
||||
proposal[1]. Please check the story for details of the problems.
|
||||
|
||||
Use Cases
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
As Wei the project owner of a Telco operator, I want to specify my resource
|
||||
usage request for planned events. Some examples of time-based usage requests:
|
||||
|
||||
* I plan to use up to 60 vCPUs and 240GB of RAM from 06/01/2017 to 08/14/2017.
|
||||
* I want guaranteed access to 4 instances with 1 vCPU, 1GB of RAM, and 10GB of
|
||||
disk. This example is similar to what would be described in the VNFD[2].
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Proposed change
|
||||
===============
|
||||
|
||||
Blazar enables users to specify the amount of instances of a particular flavor.
|
||||
As described in use cases, users who reserve instances specify a tuple of
|
||||
amount of instances and a flavor definition of the instances. A flavor
|
||||
definition contains three pieces of information: the number of vcpus, the amount
|
||||
of RAM, and the size of the disk.
|
||||
|
||||
A basic idea and a sequence of the change follows:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A tenant user creates its reservation, in Blazar terms called a
|
||||
"lease", with a set of time frame, definitions of a flavor for reserved
|
||||
instances, and how many instances.
|
||||
2. Blazar issues a lease id to the user if the total amount of instances
|
||||
defined in the request (e.g. size of flavor times number of instances)
|
||||
is less than the amount of unused capacity for reservations in the time
|
||||
frame. Blazar leases can contain multiple reservations. Blazar checks
|
||||
whether the unused capacity can accommodate all reservations or not.
|
||||
If not, Blazar does not issue a lease id.
|
||||
3. The user creates its instances via the Nova API with the reservation id.
|
||||
The request with the id is only accepted within the reservation
|
||||
time frame.
|
||||
4. Nova creates the instance onto the hypervisor that Blazar marked as
|
||||
having capacity for the reservation.
|
||||
|
||||
To realize the sequence, this BP introduces a new resource plugin
|
||||
"virtual:instance" for the Blazar project. The plugin will be implemented in
|
||||
two phases because of the following reasons.
|
||||
|
||||
Short-term goal
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
With respect to affinity and anti-affinity rules, instance reservation only
|
||||
supports anti-affinity rule reservation because affinity rule reservation
|
||||
has already been achieved by host reservation. Affinity rule reservation by
|
||||
host reservation feature is not an ideal goal. For the data center usage
|
||||
efficiency, host reservation is not a good choice because a total amount of
|
||||
resources in a reservation is usually less than one hypervisor spec. It
|
||||
results in unused instance slots in the reserved hypervisors.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, a hypervisor in the OpenStack cluster must accept total
|
||||
amount of instances in one reservation, it is equal to instance size times
|
||||
instance number, as affinity rule reservation. So the host reservation feature
|
||||
that is already implemented can handle instance reservation with affinity rule.
|
||||
|
||||
Prerequisites:
|
||||
|
||||
* The following three scheduler configuration values must be defined in
|
||||
nova.conf to use instance reservation:
|
||||
|
||||
* AggregateInstanceExtraSpecsFilter
|
||||
* AggregateMultiTenancyIsolationFilter
|
||||
* ServerGroupAntiAffinityFilter
|
||||
|
||||
For the anti-affinity rule, Blazar will do the following steps:
|
||||
|
||||
0. As a preparation, Blazar adds filter_tenant_id=blazar-user-id to the
|
||||
freepool aggregate to prevent non-reservation instances from being
|
||||
scheduled into the freepool.
|
||||
|
||||
1. A tenant user creates their reservation, in Blazar terms called a
|
||||
"lease", with a time frame, the instance size, and how many instances.
|
||||
|
||||
One "reservation" in Blazar terms represents a tuple of
|
||||
<flavor, number of instances with the flavor> and one "lease" can have
|
||||
multiple "reservations". Thus one lease can have multiple instance
|
||||
types.
|
||||
|
||||
2. Blazar checks whether the reservation is acceptable during the time
|
||||
frame or not. If acceptable, Blazar records the reservation request in
|
||||
its database and updates hypervisor usage in the freepool. Then Blazar
|
||||
returns the reservation id. If not, Blazar responds that the reservation is
|
||||
not acceptable and provides additional information to the tenant, e.g.
|
||||
the number of instances reserved is greater than the instance quota.
|
||||
|
||||
3. At the start time of the reservation, Blazar creates a server group,
|
||||
a flavor, and a host aggregate related to the reservation. Then it adds the
|
||||
hypervisors onto which reserved instances are scheduled to the aggregate.
|
||||
|
||||
The tricks Blazar is doing here are:
|
||||
|
||||
* create server group with anti-affinity policy
|
||||
* create a flavor with two extra_specs, is_public=False and flavor
|
||||
access rights to the user. The extra_specs are
|
||||
aggregate_instance_extra_specs:reservations:<reservation-id> and
|
||||
affinity_id:<server-group-id>
|
||||
* create a new host aggregate with above aggregate_instance_extra_specs
|
||||
and filter_tenant_id of the requesting user's project id
|
||||
* does not bring out the hypervisor from the freepool because other
|
||||
user's reservations also use other instance slots in the hypervisor
|
||||
|
||||
4. The user fetches the server_group id by calling the flavor show API in
|
||||
Nova, then creates reserved instances with a scheduling hint, like --hint
|
||||
group=group-id, and the newly created flavor.
|
||||
|
||||
Scheduling mechanism in Nova
|
||||
````````````````````````````
|
||||
|
||||
Blazar manages some host aggregates to handle instance scheduling in Nova.
|
||||
Blazar expects Nova to schedule instances as follows for non-reserved
|
||||
instances (usual instances), instances related to host reservation, and
|
||||
instances related to instance reservation:
|
||||
|
||||
* non-reserved instances: scheduled to hypervisors which are outside of both
|
||||
the freepool aggregate and reservation-related aggregates.
|
||||
* instances related to host reservation: scheduled to hypervisors which are
|
||||
inside the reservation-related aggregate. The hypervisors are not
|
||||
included in the freepool aggregate.
|
||||
* instances related to instance reservation: scheduled to hypervisors which
|
||||
are inside the reservation-related aggregate. The hypervisors are
|
||||
included in the freepool aggregate.
|
||||
|
||||
Nova filters used by Blazar choose hypervisors with the following rules:
|
||||
|
||||
* AggregateInstanceExtraSpecsFilter picks up hypervisors from the aggregate
|
||||
related to an instance reservation based on extra_specs of the flavor, if
|
||||
the request is related to instance reservation. If not, the filter picks up
|
||||
hypervisors from neither reservation-related aggregates nor the freepool.
|
||||
* BlazarFilter picks up hypervisors from the aggregate related to a host
|
||||
reservation based on the 'reservation' scheduler hint, if the request is
|
||||
related to host reservation. If not, the filter picks up hypervisors from
|
||||
neither host reservation-related aggregates nor the freepool.
|
||||
* AggregateMultiTenancyIsolationFilter blocks requests to be scheduled to
|
||||
the freepool by users who do not have active reservation.
|
||||
* Combination of AggregateInstanceExtraSpecsFilter and
|
||||
AggregateMultiTenancyIsolationFilter enables requests using instance
|
||||
reservation to be scheduled in the corresponding aggregate.
|
||||
* ServerGroupAntiAffinityFilter ensures instance reservation related
|
||||
instances are spread on different hypervisors.
|
||||
|
||||
Summary of short term goal
|
||||
``````````````````````````
|
||||
|
||||
* Use the host reservation function for an affinity rule reservation.
|
||||
* Use the new instance reservation function for an anti-affinity rule
|
||||
reservation.
|
||||
* Create reserved instances with a reserved flavor and a scheduling hint.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Long-term goal
|
||||
--------------
|
||||
|
||||
Instance reservation supports both affinity rule and anti-affinity rule.
|
||||
|
||||
The affinity rule reservation allows other instances or reservation to use
|
||||
unused instance slots in reserved hypervisors. The Nova team is developing
|
||||
placement API[1]. The API already has custom resource classes[2] and is now
|
||||
implementing a scheduler function[3] that uses custom resources classes.
|
||||
It enables operator to more efficiently manage hypervisors in the freepool.
|
||||
|
||||
Blazar will do the following steps:
|
||||
|
||||
1. A tenant user creates their reservation, in term of Blazar called
|
||||
"lease", with a time frame, the instance size, and how many instances.
|
||||
2. Blazar checks whether the reservation is acceptable during the time
|
||||
frame or not. If acceptable, Blazar records the reservation request
|
||||
in its database and updates the usage of hypervisor in freepool. Then
|
||||
Blazar returns the reservation id. If not, Blazar responds the reservation
|
||||
is not acceptable.
|
||||
3. At the start time of the reservation, Blazar creates a custom resource
|
||||
class, a flavor, and a resource provider of the custom resource class.
|
||||
4. The user creates reserved instances with the newly created flavor.
|
||||
|
||||
Some functionality of the placement API is under implementation. Once the
|
||||
development is finished, the Blazar team will start using the placement API.
|
||||
|
||||
Alternatives
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
This feature could be achieved on the Blazar side or on the Nova side.
|
||||
|
||||
Blazar side approach
|
||||
````````````````````
|
||||
* one reservation represents one instance
|
||||
|
||||
In the above sequence, a tenant user creates a reservation configured only with
|
||||
the instance size (e.g. flavor), reserving only one instance.
|
||||
|
||||
While it could technically work for users, they would need to handle a large
|
||||
number of reservations at client side when they would like to use many
|
||||
instances. The use case shows users would like to create multiple instances for
|
||||
one reservation.
|
||||
|
||||
Nova side approach
|
||||
``````````````````
|
||||
|
||||
* Pre-block the slots by stopped instances
|
||||
|
||||
A user creates as many instances as they want to reserve, then stops them until
|
||||
start time. It would work from a user perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, from a cloud provider perspective, it is hard to accept this
|
||||
method of "reservation". Stopped instances keep holding hypervisor resources,
|
||||
like vCPUs, for instances while they are stopped. It means cloud providers need
|
||||
to plan their hypervisor capacity to accept the total amount of usage of future
|
||||
reservations. For example, if all users reserve their instance for one year in
|
||||
advance, cloud providers need to plan hypervisors that can accept the total
|
||||
amount of instances reserved in the next year.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course, we do not prevent users from stopping their instances: users can call
|
||||
the stop API for their own reason and cloud provider bill them a usage fee for
|
||||
the hypervisor slot usage. However, from NFV motivations, telecom operators
|
||||
cannot prepare and deploy hypervisors with a large enough capacity to
|
||||
accommodate future usage demand in advance.
|
||||
|
||||
* Prepared images for the reservation by shelved instances
|
||||
|
||||
A user creates as many instances as they want to reserve, then shelves them
|
||||
until start time. It would work from a cloud provider perspective: shelved
|
||||
instances release their hypervisor slot, so the problem described earlier in the
|
||||
"stopped instance" solution would not happen.
|
||||
|
||||
On the other hand, from the user perspective, some problems could happen. As
|
||||
described in motivation section, VNF applications need affinity or anti-affinity
|
||||
rule for placement of their instances. Nova has a 'server group' API for the
|
||||
affinity and anti-affinity placement, but it does not ensure the required amount
|
||||
of instances can be located on the same host. Similarly, it does not ensure the
|
||||
required amount of instances can be accommodated by hypervisors when hypervisors
|
||||
slots are consumed by others.
|
||||
|
||||
Of course, cloud providers should usually plan enough resources to accommodate
|
||||
user requests. However, it is hard to plan enough hypervisors to make the cloud
|
||||
look like unlimited resources in NFV use cases. Requiring a very large number of
|
||||
spare hypervisors is not realistic.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Data model impact
|
||||
-----------------
|
||||
|
||||
A new table, called "instance_reservations", is introduced in the Blazar
|
||||
database. The instance reservation feature uses the existing
|
||||
computehost_allocations table to store allocation information. Usage of the
|
||||
table is as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
1. In the create lease/reservation, Blazar queries hosts that are used for
|
||||
instance reservations or are not used by any reservations during the
|
||||
reservation time window.
|
||||
2. If some hosts are already used for instance reservations, Blazar checks
|
||||
that the reserved instances could be allocated onto the hosts.
|
||||
3. If some hosts are not used by any reservation, Blazar adds a mapping of the
|
||||
reservation to computehost as computehost_allocations table.
|
||||
4. For the host reservation, the current design will never pick hosts which
|
||||
have a mapping, a reservation to hosts, during the reservation time window,
|
||||
so instance reservation does not impact host reservation queries.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
The table has size of reserved flavor, vcpu, memory size in MB and disk size in
|
||||
GB, amount of instances created with the flavor, and an affinity flag.
|
||||
|
||||
.. sourcecode:: none
|
||||
|
||||
CREATE TABLE instance_reservations (
|
||||
id VARCHAR(36) NOT NULL,
|
||||
reservation_id VARCHAR(255) NOT NULL,
|
||||
vcpus INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
|
||||
memory_mb INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
|
||||
disk_gb INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
|
||||
amount INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL,
|
||||
affinity BOOLEAN NOT NULL,
|
||||
flavor_id VARCHAR(36),
|
||||
aggregate_id INT,
|
||||
server_group_id VARCHAR(36),
|
||||
|
||||
PRIMARY key (id),
|
||||
INDEX (id, reservation_id)
|
||||
FOREIGN KEY (reservation_id)
|
||||
REFERENCES reservations(id)
|
||||
ON DELETE CASCADE,
|
||||
);
|
||||
|
||||
In the short term goal, the affinity flag only supports False since instance
|
||||
reservation only supports anti-affinity rule. The plugin manages multiple types
|
||||
of Nova resources. The mappings with each resources to column data as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
* In the db
|
||||
* reservations.resource_id is equal to instance_reservations.id
|
||||
|
||||
* With Nova resources
|
||||
|
||||
* flavor id is equal to reservations.id
|
||||
|
||||
* the extra_spec for scheduling, aggregate_instance_extra_specs, is equal
|
||||
to prefix+reservations.id
|
||||
|
||||
* aggregate name is equal to reservations.id
|
||||
|
||||
* the metadata for scheduling is equal to prefix+reservations.id
|
||||
|
||||
* server_group id is recorded in extra_spec of the flavor. This id will be
|
||||
removed in the long term goal, as it is better encapsulated in the Nova
|
||||
API.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
REST API impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
* URL: POST /v1/leases
|
||||
|
||||
* Introduce new resource_type "virtual:instance" for a reservation
|
||||
|
||||
Request Example:
|
||||
|
||||
.. sourcecode:: json
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"name": "instance-reservation-1",
|
||||
"reservations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"resource_type": "virtual:instance",
|
||||
"vcpus": 4,
|
||||
"memory_mb": 4096,
|
||||
"disk_gb": 10,
|
||||
"amount": 5,
|
||||
"affinity": False
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"start": "2017-05-17 09:07"
|
||||
"end": "2017-05-17 09:10",
|
||||
"events": []
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Response Example:
|
||||
|
||||
.. sourcecode:: json
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
"leases": {
|
||||
"reservations": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"id": "reservation-id",
|
||||
"status": "pending",
|
||||
"lease_id": "lease-id-1",
|
||||
"resource_id": "resource_id",
|
||||
"resource_type": "virtual:instance",
|
||||
"vcpus": 4,
|
||||
"memory_mb": 4096,
|
||||
"disk_gb": 10,
|
||||
"amount": 5,
|
||||
"affinity": False,
|
||||
"created_at": "2017-05-01 10:00:00",
|
||||
"updated_at": "2017-05-01 11:00:00",
|
||||
}],
|
||||
..snippet..
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
* URL: GET /v1/leases
|
||||
* URL: GET /v1/leases/{lease-id}
|
||||
* URL: PUT /v1/leases/{lease-id}
|
||||
* URL: DELETE /v1/leases/{lease-id}
|
||||
|
||||
* The change is the same as POST /v1/leases
|
||||
|
||||
Security impact
|
||||
---------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Notifications impact
|
||||
--------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Other end user impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
python-blazarclient needs to support resource reservations of type
|
||||
virtual:instance in lease handling commands.
|
||||
|
||||
Performance Impact
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Other deployer impact
|
||||
---------------------
|
||||
|
||||
The freepool that is used in physical:host plugin is also used by the
|
||||
virtual:instance plugin if the deployer activates the new plugin.
|
||||
|
||||
Developer impact
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation
|
||||
==============
|
||||
|
||||
Assignee(s)
|
||||
-----------
|
||||
|
||||
Primary assignee:
|
||||
muroi-masahito
|
||||
|
||||
Other contributors:
|
||||
None
|
||||
|
||||
Work Items
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
* Create the new table in blazar
|
||||
* Create instance reservation plugin
|
||||
* Change reservation_pool.py and nova_inventory.py to be more generic since both
|
||||
host_plugin and instance_plugin will use these classes
|
||||
* Change BlazarFilter to pass hosts which are in instance reservation aggregates
|
||||
if the reservation's extra_spec is specified.
|
||||
* Add instance reservation supports in python-blazarclient
|
||||
* Add scenario tests in gate job, mainly Tempest job
|
||||
|
||||
Dependencies
|
||||
============
|
||||
|
||||
For the long term goal, the Placement API needs to support custom resource
|
||||
classes and a mechanism to use them for Nova scheduling.
|
||||
|
||||
Testing
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
* The following scenarios should be tested:
|
||||
|
||||
* Creating an anti-affinity reservation and verify all instances belonging
|
||||
to the reservation are scheduled onto different hosts.
|
||||
* Verify that both host reservation and instance reservation pick hosts from
|
||||
the same freepool and that Blazar coordinates all reservations correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
Documentation Impact
|
||||
====================
|
||||
|
||||
* API reference
|
||||
|
||||
References
|
||||
==========
|
||||
|
||||
1. Capacity Management development proposal: http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/development-proposals/tree/development-proposals/proposed/capacity-management.rst
|
||||
2. VNFD: http://www.etsi.org/deliver/etsi_gs/NFV-IFA
|
||||
3. Placement API: https://docs.openstack.org/developer/nova/placement.html
|
||||
4. Custom Resource Classes: https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/ocata/implemented/custom-resource-classes.html
|
||||
5. Custom Resource Classes Filter: http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/pike/approved/custom-resource-classes-in-flavors.html
|
||||
|
||||
History
|
||||
=======
|
||||
|
||||
.. list-table:: Revisions
|
||||
:header-rows: 1
|
||||
|
||||
* - Pike
|
||||
- Introduced
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user