|
Size: 11065
Comment:
|
Size: 4987
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 == | == Project Goal == Build a DoC Infrastructure-as-a-service private cloud, very like Amazon EC2 ("Elastic Compute Service") which presents a secure and convenient web interface which enables users of DoC to specify and create VMs and associated storage, automatically install OSes on them and deploy them. Main goal is to virtualize most research servers, decoupling the OS image from the hardware for greater flexibility. Sharing (amortizing) the costs of each machine. One driver of this is EPSRC deciding to only provide 50% of any hardware bid over £10K in future, with the Dept expected to pay the remaining 50|%. This project will definitely proceed, having been approved by Executive Committee and by two open meetings of Academic staff. Peter McBrien (PJM) is leading the project, and has laid out two stages: 1. a 6 month phase to build a prototype cloud, recruiting a "Cloud Manager" person to join CSG, either temporary or permanent. The Department will spend some significant amount of money, perhaps in the £100-200K range. 2. assuming the prototype cloud is successful, it will move into production and the "Cloud Manager" become permanent. Researchers then have the option of adding hardware to the cloud. All members of CSG will become skilled in cloud-related topics, and the "Cloud Manager" will do non-cloud-related problem solving too. Most crucially: (despite not knowing the exact spec, services to provide, let alone how to implement them) the Department has found a significant amount of money (perhaps in the region of £100-200K) to spend on this project - and this money '''must be full spent before the end of July'''. This means that all kit must be ordered, delivered and paid for before the 31st of July. With the Olympics making deliveries difficult, this means that everything must have been ordered by 1st July. Re: amount to spend, AON suggested CSG prepare hardware proposals for £100K, £150K and £200K, which we (LDK) have done. == Background == |
| Line 6: | Line 34: |
| 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 57: |
| 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, clarifying things. Then further meetings with interested academics were held. |
| Line 32: | Line 60: |
| Saving RAs significant informal sysadmin time is a goal. | == Cloud Services and Software Investigations == |
| Line 34: | Line 62: |
| 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 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 are tasked with providing possible plans for these price levels. |
CSG have been performing initial investigations of hardware to buy, whether all commodity or investigating commercial filers like NetApp, and possible software that might be able to implement some/all of the required iaas cloud services. Here are our notes: |
| Line 44: | Line 65: |
| 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. Alternatives need to be looked at as well.. |
[[internal/project/privatecloud/investigations|Software Investigations]] |
| Line 50: | Line 67: |
| == Working Group: 3rd April 2012 meeting == | == Cloud Hardware == |
| Line 52: | Line 69: |
| A working group of academics has been set up, this met on 3rd April 2012 for the first time. Things discussed: |
Susan expressed a serious preference for open source software running on commodity hardware. That way, commodity hardware could be repurposed, even if the cloud project failed completely. |
| Line 55: | Line 73: |
| * 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.. |
Against that, Peter Pietzuch strongly recommended that we also investigate commercial scalable storage systems - specifically NetApp "scalable NAS" units. We are investigating these and will report back soon. |
| Line 58: | Line 77: |
| * 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. | Possible hardware to buy will be added later, we have done quite a lot of work.. coming soon. |
| Line 60: | Line 79: |
| * PJM: also, are we all agreed: it's got to be a realiable production system. Noone disagreed (but see later discussions). | == Staff Working Group meetings == |
| Line 62: | Line 81: |
| * JAMM: use cases of interest to her - 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. | In April 2012, the discussion was opened out to all interested staff, and (so far) two open staff cloud meetings have been held. Here are some notes taken by DCW and LDK of the discussions at both meetings. |
| Line 64: | Line 84: |
| * 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. | [[internal/project/privatecloud/meeting-2012-04-03|Open Staff Meeting 1 - April 3rd 2012]] |
| Line 66: | Line 86: |
| * 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, use and 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! * PRP agreed with Julie 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, added a 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, which is why ICT HPC kit doesn't support Matlab either! * 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, batch processing 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" (but DCW doesn't know what that means). * DCW added: HPC doesn't even let you access College home dirs cos they're "not fast enough" (source: Simon Burbidge, ICT). * 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 fileservers will need to scale more to cope. * DCW asked: what about Amazon S3 - simple distributed (key,value) storage system - important to DoC? some people said "might be useful" but noone had a solid use case. * WJK added that he'd love to do storage speed 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. Amazingly, he didn't even say "Ceph":-) * 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? general vague agreement. * DCW summary: so cloud storage needs to hold VM images, it's not clear whether the same cloud storage subsystem should also support scalable filesystems, or whether fileservers are separate (but need to scale more). No estimate of size! S3 probably not important (optional extra). * GCASALE asked: what type of cloud? private? DCW/PJM: yes. what about cloudbursting, he asked ? DWM: what's that? - upload VMs to Amazon after development (or when need short term extra resources, maybe downloading VMs from Amazon too, general inter-Amazon operability). 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, they can also discuss bandwidth reservation. * "natasha's phd student in her place": their group are very interested in virtualizing algorithms but still using FGPAs and GPUs, and again more scalable storage is needed here. * WL agreed, saying some VM hosts definitely need to have GPUs and FPGAs (he can provide details and costs). DCW added that Amazon EC2 had VMs with access to GPUs and FPGAs etc in their pricing model. * 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. * PJM talked about a cost accounting model, enforcing 50% maximum usage, sounded very complicated (DCW: god knows how that's even implemented! perhaps logging use for post-analysis). WJK wondered whether anything that heavy was needed. * JD asked: would we give access to people outside of DoC? DCW: no, our resources, our users. JD: power of clouds (and interesting research topics) is when you get to federating. * PJM: might be open to sharing with ICT, maybe specific research projects later? Quick round up of other comments at end, useful services to check? * CacheDB useful (JD) * OpenNebula (GCASALE) * Eucalyptus (JD). * OpenStack (PJM) * Hadoop/Mapreduce (green shirt bloke) * DCW asked about size of storage: helpful answer was "TBs to PBs". Next Working Group meeting 25th April 1pm, level 4 common room |
[[internal/project/privatecloud/meeting-2012-04-25|Open Staff Meeting 2 - April 25th 2012]] |
DoC Private Cloud
Project Goal
Build a DoC Infrastructure-as-a-service private cloud, very like Amazon EC2 ("Elastic Compute Service") which presents a secure and convenient web interface which enables users of DoC to specify and create VMs and associated storage, automatically install OSes on them and deploy them. Main goal is to virtualize most research servers, decoupling the OS image from the hardware for greater flexibility. Sharing (amortizing) the costs of each machine. One driver of this is EPSRC deciding to only provide 50% of any hardware bid over £10K in future, with the Dept expected to pay the remaining 50|%.
This project will definitely proceed, having been approved by Executive Committee and by two open meetings of Academic staff.
Peter McBrien (PJM) is leading the project, and has laid out two stages:
- a 6 month phase to build a prototype cloud, recruiting a "Cloud Manager" person to join CSG, either temporary or permanent. The Department will spend some significant amount of money, perhaps in the £100-200K range.
- assuming the prototype cloud is successful, it will move into production and the "Cloud Manager" become permanent. Researchers then have the option of adding hardware to the cloud. All members of CSG will become skilled in cloud-related topics, and the "Cloud Manager" will do non-cloud-related problem solving too.
Most crucially: (despite not knowing the exact spec, services to provide, let alone how to implement them) the Department has found a significant amount of money (perhaps in the region of £100-200K) to spend on this project - and this money must be full spent before the end of July. This means that all kit must be ordered, delivered and paid for before the 31st of July. With the Olympics making deliveries difficult, this means that everything must have been ordered by 1st July.
Re: amount to spend, AON suggested CSG prepare hardware proposals for £100K, £150K and £200K, which we (LDK) have done.
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, clarifying things. Then further meetings with interested academics were held.
Cloud Services and Software Investigations
CSG have been performing initial investigations of hardware to buy, whether all commodity or investigating commercial filers like NetApp, and possible software that might be able to implement some/all of the required iaas cloud services. Here are our notes:
Cloud Hardware
Susan expressed a serious preference for open source software running on commodity hardware. That way, commodity hardware could be repurposed, even if the cloud project failed completely.
Against that, Peter Pietzuch strongly recommended that we also investigate commercial scalable storage systems - specifically NetApp "scalable NAS" units. We are investigating these and will report back soon.
Possible hardware to buy will be added later, we have done quite a lot of work.. coming soon.
Staff Working Group meetings
In April 2012, the discussion was opened out to all interested staff, and (so far) two open staff cloud meetings have been held. Here are some notes taken by DCW and LDK of the discussions at both meetings.