|
Size: 10340
Comment:
|
Size: 4533
Comment:
|
| Deletions are marked like this. | Additions are marked like this. |
| Line 1: | Line 1: |
| = Wiki page for notes on Jan-April 2012 DoC private cloud discussions = | = DoC Private Cloud = |
| Line 3: | Line 3: |
| == Intro == | == Services == Initially, the following services will be needed: * Virtual-machine hosting / automated provisioning facility. * Persistent backing-store for VM images. * High-performance POSIX file-store access / scratch areas. In relation to scalable storage options, we've already been thinking about these for a while; see also: [[internal/project/Storage-NG|Storage-NG]]. Candidate software tooling includes: * VM seed/runtime image storage: * [[http://openstack.org/projects/storage/|OpenStack Swift]] distributed object store. (Implements Amazon S3 only) * [[http://www.osrg.net/sheepdog/|Sheepdog]] distributed image storage. * High-performance POSIX file-stores: * [[http://www.gluster.org/|Gluster]] distributed filesystem. * [[http://ceph.newdream.net/|Ceph]] distributed object store / block-device / filesystem. At present, the options for scalable high-performance NFS filers are either expensive or not yet mature. Upgrades to the network connections for existing NFS filers may also be warranted. * Virtual-machines: * [[http://www.xen.org/|Xen]] paravirtualization tools. * [[http://www.linux-kvm.org/|KVM]] (para)-virtualization tools. * [[http://libvirt.org/|libvirt]] VM abstraction and management layer. * [[http://code.google.com/p/ganeti/|Ganeti]] VM management system. * [[http://openstack.org/projects/compute/|OpenStack Nova]] VM management system. The virtual-machine management layer will need to support accounting for resource utilization by the VMs spawned for a given user or group, live migration of VMs from one host to another, and will likely need to support automated backups / snapshots of historical virtual-machine disk state. (Note that this differs from existing doctrine, which specifies that the machine-local OS data is expendable, and can be regenerated.) The use of seed images, data de-duplication, and/or copy-on-write would also be valuable for minimising storage requirements. == Background == |
| Line 6: | Line 40: |
| someone (Jeremy Cohen) for 6 months into CSG, specifically tasked with building a DoC private cloud [definition unclear]. Essentially, Exec Committee has found some money and needs to spend it quick! |
someone for 6 months into CSG, specifically tasked with building a DoC private cloud. Essentially she said that Exec Committee has found some significant pot of money which needs to be spent this financial year. |
| Line 29: | Line 63: |
| Suppose, for instance, the group needed N nodes x 100% of underlying VM host x M months [and then less thereafter]. |
Various discussions with PJM and AON followed, post will be called "Cloud Manager" and be part of CSG, and do non-cloud things too. Could be permanent, could be 6 months in the first instance. |
| Line 32: | Line 67: |
| Susan also added "and it should just scale without limits, manage itself magically", which is less realistic:-) Saving RAs significant informal sysadmin time is a goal. Various discussions with PJM and AON followed, Jeremy decided not to accept the job, DoC still wants to hire a "Cloud Manager" as part of CSG. Most crucially: the Dept decided it has money now, not next year, and that (despite not knowing the exact spec, services to provide, let alone how to implement them) we therefore needed to purchase all the kit |
Most crucially: (despite not knowing the exact spec, services to provide, let alone how to implement them) we therefore need to purchase all the kit |
| Line 43: | Line 71: |
| £150K or even £200K - we are tasked with providing possible plans for | £150K or even £200K - we will provide possible plans for |
| Line 49: | Line 77: |
| replication). So far: it's not there yet. Alternatives need to be looked at as well.. |
replication). So far: it's not there yet, at least as a fast POSIX filesystem. Alternatives need to be looked at as well.. |
| Line 52: | Line 80: |
| == Working Group: 3rd April 2012 meeting == | == Steering meetings == |
| Line 54: | Line 82: |
| A working group of academics has been set up, this met on 3rd April 2012 for the first time. Things discussed: - PJM/Susan: background (spend money now, define services later), acknowledged unusual approach.. added (PJM) idea that a group can have a VM per project per year if they need, so they build new apps on the latest supported OS, while maintaining the ability to run their old versions on the older OS, allows people to try old code on new OS releases without "big bang" server upgrade problems. old VMs can eventually wither away.. - PJM: start with concept of: every student gets a VM as they walk in through the door, keep while at College, have root access [need to fix/avoid NFS problem]. users should have the ability to create more VMs programmatically, both short term and long term ones. - PJM: also, are we all agreed: it's got to be a realiable production system. - JAMM: use cases - projects into cloud technologies, pervasive computing exercises could be made more flexible [not sure how], some of her research involves streaming data from sensors, need high-capacity filestores. - PRP: EPSRC call "every research grant puts in for a small cluster" by the name "vanity clusters". EPSRC favouring shared resources (Dept, College, federated) - will allocate at most first £10K of equipment, then excess must have matching funds from Dept! favours (for example) shared services, grids, clouds and HPC. - PRP added: VMs can really speed up provisioning of research project kit, instead of purchasing kit, waiting for it to arrive, installing and configuring it, continuing to maintain it, then (after project) decide what to do with it, can create 16 short term VMs bound to suitable hardware very quickly, do quick experiments and release the VMs resources. If spare hardware capacity is in hand, of course! Like Julie, Peter added that research into cloud and distributed systems performance could be improved if we had a cloud which we could monitor and tweak. - JD: 2 important aspects of cloud here: 1. easily provisioned VMs; 2. amortization of all resources over multiple projects. The latter requires that researchers don't require all of their "own" resources "all" of the time - otherwise none spare! - PJM/Susan: the matching funds model allows Dept to demand up to 50% of these shared resources [on average over time, perhaps front-loaded so "owners" get the majority of time up front, release nearly all resources later for general use]. - CCADAR: will sometimes need exclusive access to all "your" cluster VMs on all your hardware for experiments - repeatability is especially important. => need ability to pin VMs onto particular classes of node. - PRP: Yes, and sometime experiments need to happen directly on the bare metal. but only a small minority! - JAMM: performance monitoring very important. - WJK: yes, including power monitoring of the physical VM hosts, a la picards. very useful. - GCASALE: agreed, subtle point about frequency of monitoring being very different between cheap power mon and expensive power mon.. LDK discussing with him. - SUSAN: Maja had mentioned that she makes a very large amount of use of Matlab, on Windows clusters, buying extra parallel licenses etc. PJM: why not use College standard license? DCW: believe extra modules and parallel licenses not included in College Matlab license. DCW added: Note that ICT HPC kit doesn't support Matlab for same reason! - TORA: Lab are very interested in more continuous autotesting, need a better sandbox: like a short term VM to run student code in! Also very interested in scalable storage (didn't say why?) - JD/SUSAN discussed: where are other Computing Depts with clouds? at any level (Dept, College, federated?) - answer seems to be: none known in production. - DWM added that LESC had done lots of "cloud v1" - grid - related work, and mentioned the similarities between grids, private clouds and HPC. - PRP said that we should make more use of ICT's HPC, as we're paying for it. Susan said: some use (PHJK, Kanwal), have found HPC team not very welcoming to DoC, sniffy about Java code. DCW said: yes, real programmers in HPC:-) DCW added: lots of money still going in though - let's use it. ICT also upgrading to VMware ESX 5, which "supports cloud" (buzzword alert). DCW added: HPC doesn't even let you access College home dirs cos they're "not fast enough". - PJM asked re: this - does everyone want DoC home dirs and research volumes accessible from VMs? everyone agreed, and several people pointed out that existing fileservers can be saturated by Condor so need to scale more. => cloud storage needs to hold VM images and (some) scalable filesystem data too. not clear how much. - DCW asked: what about Amazon S3 - simple distributed (key,value) storage system - do we need that? some people said "might be useful" but noone had a solid use case. - WJK added that he'd love to do experiments using different speed storage eg. flash and raid levels. - TORA added that a large scalable block storage system would be very useful, but neglected to say why. - DWM said there seems to be a need for scalable storage at some level as part of the cloud, there are a variety of technologies - open source and commercial - to look at. - PJM channeled PRP in saying that "commercial filers" should be looked into, think he meants NetApp/EMC stuff. Susan said DoC prefers open source if possible, PRP added that cloud storage is NetApp's bread and butter and their support and scalability was really good. DCW: look at. - SUSAN reported that DR had initially said - CSG do everything his group needs, why need a cloud. However, when she asked him - want more scalable storage, his eyes lit up! - DWM: so we conclude that scalable storage is very important? - GCASALE asked: what type of cloud? private? DCW/PJM: yes. what about cloudbursting, Giuliano asked ? [what's that we said] - upload VMs to Amazon after development (or when need short term resources). PJM: useful if possible. - "tall chap in green shirt": what about network bandwidth? 10Gb links? may also need bandwidth reservation in switch fabric. DWM: talking with ICT networking about 10Gb. - "natasha's phd student in her place": their group are very interested in virtualizing algorithms and still using FGPAs and GPUs, and again more scalable storage is needed here. - WL agrees, saying some VM hosts definitely need to have GPUs and FPGAs (he can provide details and costs). He added that he'd be very interested in "getting under the hood" and tweaking and monitoring how various aspects of the cloud operate. PJM said: may be contrary to production cloud - but perhaps a "sandpit cloud" could fork off the main cloud on occasion, grab some hardware etc. WJK agreed. DCW added that Amazon EC2 had VMs with access to GPUs and FPGAs etc in their pricing model. - PJM talked about a cost accounting model, enforcing 50% maximum usage, WJK wondered whether anything that heavy was needed. (god knows how that's even implemented! perhaps logging use for post-analysis). - JD asked: would we give access to people outside of DoC? DCW: no. PJM: might be open to sharing with ICT. JD: power of clouds - federating. |
[[internal/project/privatecloud/meeting-2012-04-03|Meeting 1 - April 3rd 2012]] |
DoC Private Cloud
Services
Initially, the following services will be needed:
- Virtual-machine hosting / automated provisioning facility.
- Persistent backing-store for VM images.
- High-performance POSIX file-store access / scratch areas.
In relation to scalable storage options, we've already been thinking about these for a while; see also: Storage-NG.
Candidate software tooling includes:
- VM seed/runtime image storage:
OpenStack Swift distributed object store. (Implements Amazon S3 only)
Sheepdog distributed image storage.
- High-performance POSIX file-stores:
At present, the options for scalable high-performance NFS filers are either expensive or not yet mature. Upgrades to the network connections for existing NFS filers may also be warranted.
- Virtual-machines:
Xen paravirtualization tools.
KVM (para)-virtualization tools.
libvirt VM abstraction and management layer.
Ganeti VM management system.
OpenStack Nova VM management system.
The virtual-machine management layer will need to support accounting for resource utilization by the VMs spawned for a given user or group, live migration of VMs from one host to another, and will likely need to support automated backups / snapshots of historical virtual-machine disk state. (Note that this differs from existing doctrine, which specifies that the machine-local OS data is expendable, and can be regenerated.)
The use of seed images, data de-duplication, and/or copy-on-write would also be valuable for minimising storage requirements.
Background
Sometime in early 2012, Susan told DCW that DoC were thinking of hiring someone for 6 months into CSG, specifically tasked with building a DoC private cloud. Essentially she said that Exec Committee has found some significant pot of money which needs to be spent this financial year.
She explained the core idea was "virtualisation even for research clusters": at present, research groups buy clusters when they have money, CSG set them up, install "linux du jour" on them, configure fileservers (if part of cluster), tape backups (if part), processing node special software etc.
Then the servers age, the OS is essentially frozen (it's often difficult to persuade researchers that we should reinstall their fileservers, webservers and compute nodes). They become "fragile". Sometimes it's hard to even retire them on schedule (4/5/6 years or whatever). Also these clusters are often only accessible by members of that research group so the resource may not be fully utilised.
Susan's vision: setup a private cloud, researchers add hardware to that cloud's core resources, then create a VM for each cluster node, perhaps tied (1-1 at first) to their own hardware, CSG install that virtual cluster node's OS, researchers work as before - but each node is encapsulated inside a VM. Later, these VMs could share resources - when the group don't need 100% resources, or new more powerful hardware is purchased.
Various discussions with PJM and AON followed, post will be called "Cloud Manager" and be part of CSG, and do non-cloud things too. Could be permanent, could be 6 months in the first instance.
Most crucially: (despite not knowing the exact spec, services to provide, let alone how to implement them) we therefore need to purchase all the kit having it delivered in July 2012, before the Olympics. PJM added "build a private cloud like Amazon EC2 does", AON suggested a budget of £100K, £150K or even £200K - we will provide possible plans for these price levels.
DWM has spent a lot of time evaluating Ceph as a possible S3/Elastic Block Store like storage system for supporting VM storage and possibly very high speed filesystems eg. staging areas for VM data (scaleout NAS with replication). So far: it's not there yet, at least as a fast POSIX filesystem. Alternatives need to be looked at as well..