[occi-wg] Scheduling parameters

[Andre Merzky]

Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Apr 14 2009):
> 
>> - do you intent to hook GLUE into the <Info> part in your
>>   XML example, or into similar places in the API?
>>   Optionally at least?
>>   <Info>4Gb, 2 CPU, 1 disk, 2 nic virtual machine</Info>
> 
> That's actually embedded OVF - what specifically did you have in mind?

Opps, sorry - I missed that, and barked up the wrong tree :-)
Its obvious now, thanks.

But anyway: do you expect GLUE to play any role in respect to the specification
of (VM) resource requirements?


>> - why the [3]purl.org/occi namespace?  OGF has an established
>>    namespace for XML schemata,  see [4]http://schemas.ogf.org/,
>>    and GFD.84 on [5]http://www.ogf.org/docs/?cp
> 
> [6]purl.org gives us a simple way to collaboratively develop the
> namespace while allowing for third party extensions, but I'm not
> particularly religious about it - we can migrate once the API settles
> down if we decide that's the best thing to do.

fair enough.


>> A question about the machine control extension: I am not
>> overly familiar with the capabilities offerred by the
>> various discussed backends, but is a 'CLONE' operation
>> something which is being considered?  That would be
>> basically a CREATE op which refers to a running instance
>> instead of reffering to an image and instance description
>> (or whatever your CREATE needs as input).  How would that
>> map to your state machine?  As suspend/resume (for the time
>> a snapshot is taken)?  Similar for 'MIGRATE'...
> 
> So my thoughts so far were that templates would be exposed as "ghosts"
> that would be missing "start", "stop", etc. actuators, rather having
> only "deploy" (ala Sun Cloud API). "clone" to me sounds like taking a
> copy of something that exists rather than instantiating something that
> is abstract, 

yes.

>    though perhaps something like this would be useful for
>    snapshotting (ultimately we're going to have to run through various
>    clients and see what functionality we're missing).

Thanks, makes sense.


>> Sorry if that question is off target...
> 
> Definitely not - it's great to see some discussion kicking off already
> (we're still in the process of officially announcing the working
> group!).

:-)

Cheers, Andre.


-- 
Nothing is ever easy.