Resource Providers - Base Models¶
This blueprint partially addresses the problem of Nova assuming all resources are provided by a single compute node by introducing a new concept – a resource provider – that will allow Nova to accurately track and reserve resources regardless of whether the resource is being exposed by a single compute node, some shared resource pool or an external resource-providing service of some sort.
Note that the majority of the work described here was completed in Mitaka. The single remaining work item is the creation of an AllocationItem.
Within a cloud deployment, there are a number of resources that may be consumed by a user. Some resource types are provided by a compute node; these types of resources include CPU, memory, PCI devices and local ephemeral disk. Other types of resources, however, are not provided by a compute node, but instead are provided by some external resource pool. An example of such a resource would be a shared storage pool like that provided by Ceph or an NFS share.
Unfortunately, due to legacy reasons, Nova only thinks of resources as being provided by a compute node. The tracking of resources assumes that it is the compute node that provides the resource, and therefore when reporting usage of certain resources, Nova naively calculates resource usage and availability by simply summing amounts across all compute nodes in its database. This ends up causing a number of problems  with usage and capacity amounts being incorrect.
As a deployer that has chosen to use a shared storage solution for storing instance ephemeral disks, I want Nova and Horizon to report the correct usage and capacity information.
We propose to introduce new database tables and object models in Nova that store information about the inventory/capacity information of generic providers of various resources, along with a table structure that can store usage/allocation information for that inventory.
This blueprint intentionally does NOT insert records into these new database tables. The tables will be populated with the work in the follow-up compute-node-inventory, compute-node-allocations, and generic-resource-pools blueprints.
We are going to need a lookup table for the IDs of various resource providers in the system, too. We’ll call this lookup table resource_providers:
CREATE TABLE resource_providers ( id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTOINCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, uuid CHAR (36) NOT NULL, name VARCHAR(200) NOT NULL CHARACTER SET utf8, generation INT NOT NULL, can_host INT NOT NULL, UNIQUE INDEX (uuid) );
The generation and can_host fields are internal implementation fields that respectively allow for atomic allocation operations and tell the scheduler whether the resource provider can be a destination for an instance to land on (hint: a resource pool never can be the target for an instance).
An inventories table records the amount of a particular resource that is provided by a particular resource provider:
CREATE TABLE inventories ( id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTOINCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, resource_provider_id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, resource_class_id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, total INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, reserved INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, min_unit INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, max_unit INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, step_size INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, allocation_ratio FLOAT NOT NULL, INDEX (resource_provider_id), INDEX (resource_class_id) );
The reserved field shall store the amount the resource provider “sets aside” for unmanaged consumption of its resources. By “unmanaged”, we refer here to Nova (or the eventual broken-out scheduler) not being involved in the allocation of some of the resources from the provider. As an example, let’s say that a compute node wants to reserve some amount of RAM for use by the host, and therefore reduce the amount of RAM that the compute node advertises as its capacity. As another example, imagine a shared resource pool that has some amount of disk space consumed by things other than Nova instances. Or, further, a Neutron routed network containing a pool of IPv4 addresses, but Nova instances may not be assigned the first 5 IP addresses in the pool.
The allocation_ratio field shall store the “overcommit” ratio for a particular class of resource that the provider is willing to tolerate. This information is currently stored only for CPU and RAM in the cpu_allocation_ratio and ram_allocation_ratio fields in the compute_nodes table.
The min_unit and max_unit fields shall store “limits” information for the type of resource. This information is necessary to ensure that a request for more or fewer resource that can be provided as a single unit will not be accepted.
How min_unit, max_unit, and allocation_ratio work together
As an example, let us say that a particular compute node has two quad-core Xeon processors, providing 8 total physical cores. Even though the cloud administrator may have set the cpu_allocation_ratio to 16 (the default), the compute node cannot accept requests for instances needing more than 8 vCPUs. So, while there may be 128 total vCPUs available on the compute node, the min_unit would be set to 1 and the max_unit would be set to 8 in order to prevent unacceptable matching of resources to requests.
The step_size is a representation of the divisible unit amount of the resource that may be requested, if the requested amount is greater than the `min_unit` value.
For instance, let’s say that an operator wants to ensure that a user can only request disk resources in 10G increments, with nothing less than 5G and nothing more than 1TB. For the DISK_GB resource class, the operator would set the inventory of the shared storage pool to a min_unit of 5, a max_unit of 1000, and a step_size of 10. This would allow a request for 5G of disk space as well as 10G and 20G of disk space, but not 6, 7, or 8GB of disk space. As another example, let’s say an operator set their VCPU inventory record on a particular compute node to be min_unit of 1, max_unit of 16, and step_size of 2, that would mean a user can request an instance only consumes 1 vCPU, but if the user requests more than a single vCPU, that number must be divisible evenly by 2, up to a maximum of 16.
In order to track resources that have been assigned and used by some consumer of that resource, we need an allocations table. Records in this table will indicate the amount of a particular resource that has been allocated to a given consumer of that resource from a particular resource provider:
CREATE TABLE allocations ( id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL AUTOINCREMENT PRIMARY KEY, resource_provider_id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, consumer_id VARCHAR(64) NOT NULL, resource_class_id INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, used INT UNSIGNED NOT NULL, INDEX (resource_provider_id, resource_class_id, used), INDEX (consumer_id), INDEX (resource_class_id) );
When a consumer of a particular resource claims resources from a provider, a record is inserted into to the allocations table.
The consumer_id field will be the UUID of the entity that is consuming this resource. This will always be the Nova instance UUID until some future point when the Nova scheduler may be broken out to support more than just compute resources. The allocations table is populated by logic outlined in the compute-node-allocations specification.
The process of claiming a set of resources in the allocations table will look something like this:
BEGIN TRANSACTION; FOR $RESOURCE_CLASS, $REQUESTED_AMOUNT IN requested_resources: INSERT INTO allocations ( resource_provider_id, resource_class_id, consumer_id, used ) VALUES ( $RESOURCE_PROVIDER_ID, $RESOURCE_CLASS, $INSTANCE_UUID, $REQUESTED_AMOUNT ); COMMIT TRANSACTION;
The problem with the above is that if two threads run a query and select the same resource provider to place an instance on, they will have selected the resource provider after making a point-in-time view of the available inventory on that resource provider. By the time the COMMIT_TRANSACTION occurs, one thread may have claimed resources on that resource provider and changed that point-in-time view in the other thread. If the other thread just proceeds and adds records to the allocations table, we could end up with more resources consumed on the host than can actually fit on the host. The traditional way of solving this problem was to use a SELECT FOR UPDATE query when retrieving the point-in-time view of the resource provider’s inventory. However, the SELECT FOR UPDATE statement is not supported properly when running MySQL Galera Cluster in a multi-writer mode. In addition, it uses a heavy pessimistic locking algorithm which locks the selected records for a (relatively) long period of time.
To solve this particular problem, applications can use a “compare and update” strategy. In this approach, reader threads save some information about the point-in-time view and when sending writes to the database, include a WHERE condition containing the piece of data from the point-in-time view. The write will only succeed (return >0 rows affected) if the original condition holds and another thread hasn’t updated the viewed rows in between the time of the initial point-in-time read and the attempt to write to the same rows in the table.
The resource_providers.generation field enables atomic writes to the allocations table using this “compare and update” strategy.
Essentially, in pseudo-code, this is how the generation field is used in a “compare and update” approach to claiming resources on a provider:
deadlock_retry: $ID, $GENERATION = SELECT id, generation FROM resource_providers WHERE ( <QUERY_TO_IDENTIFY_AVAILABLE_INVENTORY> ); BEGIN TRANSACTION; FOR $RESOURCE_CLASS, $REQUESTED_AMOUNT IN requested_resources: INSERT INTO allocations ( resource_provider_id, resource_class_id, consumer_id, used ) VALUES ( $RESOURCE_PROVIDER_ID, $RESOURCE_CLASS, $INSTANCE_UUID, $REQUESTED_AMOUNT ); $ROWS_AFFECTED = UPDATE resource_providers SET generation = $GENERATION + 1 WHERE generation = $GENERATION; IF $ROWS_AFFECTED == 0: ROLLBACK TRANSACTION; GO TO deadlock_retry; COMMIT TRANSACTION;
Continue to use the compute_nodes table to store all resource usage and capacity information. The problem with this are as follows:
Any new resources require changes to the database schema
We have nowhere in the database to indicate that some resource is shared among compute nodes
Data model impact¶
A number of data model changes will be needed.
New models for:
New database tables for all of the above
Database migrations needed:
Addition of following tables into the schema:
REST API impact¶
Other end user impact¶
Other deployer impact¶
- Primary assignee:
- Other contributors:
Create database migration that creates the resource_providers, inventories, and allocations tables
Create the new nova.objects models for ResourceProvider, InventoryItem, and AllocationItem
In Mitaka, all of this work was completed except for the creation of the AllocationItem, which will be completed in Newton.
The resource-classes blueprint work is a foundation for this work, since the resource_class_id field in the inventories and allocations table refers (logically, not via a foreign key constraint) to the resource class concept introduced in that blueprint spec.
New unit tests for the migrations and new object models should suffice for this spec.
 Bugs related to resource usage reporting and calculation:
Hypervisor summary shows incorrect total storage (Ceph) https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1387812
rbd backend reports wrong ‘local_gb_used’ for compute node https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1493760
nova hypervisor-stats shows wrong disk usage with shared storage https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1414432
report disk consumption incorrect in nova-compute https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1315988
VMWare: available disk spaces(hypervisor-list) only based on a single datastore instead of all available datastores from cluster https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1347039
Added name, generation and can_host fields to the resource_providers table