We should present administrators, with the ability to configure the launch-time provider account selection policy for a specific pool, and to set a global default policy to apply in pools where no custom policy is defined.
The policy would be applied after a set of viable provider accounts has been identified. Those will be the provider accounts to which the relevant images have been pushed, and for which a set of hardware profile matches can be made etc..
The selection policy should work by defining a probability distribution, stating how likely each provider account is to be selected to host the new deployment, expressed as a percentage. Once those percentage are calculated, Conductor should pick a random number between 1 and 100 and attempt to launch on the lucky provider account.
Using a probability range and randomly selecting within that range might seem counter-intuitive: Having done the maths and assigned a numerical probability to each provider account, based on its suitability to host the deployment, why not just launch on the “best” provider? The issue is one of scale. When considering a single launch, selecting the account which gathered the highest score makes sense, but once Conductor is managing a large volume of deployments, the downside of that approach becomes clear - If one provider account gathered more than 50% of the probability ranking, it would get 100% of the instances, without the randomness.
Whilst the various policies should be stackable, one of the two following policies should be the initial basis for the calculation:
Round robin, with optional weighting:
With this policy, Conductor would use each of the available provider accounts equally, by assigning the same probability to each of them. Varying the probabilities, to assign a weighting, would be useful in instances where the private cloud providers associated with each provider account are of differing sizes. e.g. Three vSphere clusters, one of which has double the capacity of the other two. In that circumstance, the Administrator could adjust the weighting ratios to more closely reflect the actual capacities of each cluster.
It is worth noting that this isn't
strictly round robin. The provider accounts wouldn't be selected
in
strict rotation, though the overall result is the same.
Least used, with optional weighting:
This policy would make most sense in
scenarios where Conductor is the sole means by which instances are
launched on private cloud providers. Conductor would seek to
ensure
that the usage of the providers was balanced, by giving a higher
probability to whichever provider accounts are currently least
used.
As with round robin, the weightings could be adjusted to reflect
differing capacities between providers.
Having used on of those two policies
to
acquire an initial set of probabilities, administrators could then
elect to apply additional policies, including:
Assigned priority:
The probability assigned to each
provider account would be adjusted according to the provider
accounts' priority, by increasing the probability ranking
percentage
of the higher priority provider accounts at the expense of the
lower
priority ones
Punishing failure:
Once the audit history records past
failures, for each occurrence of a launch failure within a
configurable period (6 hours feels reasonable), a provider account
would be fined 5% from its probability ranking. This would serve
to
reduce the attempts to launch on a provider which is running out
of
capacity, or experiencing hardware issues etc.
Cost
There are three principle cloud uses which can incur costs: consumption of network bandwidth, consumption of storage and running a VM.
Happily, only one of these needs to be a factor when Conductor is selecting a provider account to launch: the cost of running the VM.
The amount of network bandwidth that a deployment will consume is pretty much unknowable at launch time. And, if it is known because, for example, a deployment is for a streaming media server, then Administrators can minimize costs by only launching that deployment in a "Low cost bandwith" pool.
As long as we're not supporting deployments which include the allocation of additional storage, the costs of storage consumption are an issue to consider at build & push time, rather than at launch time.
So, in order to allow cost to be another factor which affects the probability rankings, all we need is a cost per realm, per hour, for each provider hardware profile, for each provider account.
Admins are going to have to enter that data themselves. That's not as onerous as it sounds, given that, for example, it will often be the case that costs will not vary across realms, so the UI can help by pre-filling.
Clearly, for private clouds, no alternative means for getting pricing data into Conductor exists. For public providers, it would be beneficial if their APIs exported list pricing, however:
- Few organizations which operate on a scale which justifies using Aeolus are likely to be paying list price
- Organizations may wish to store and
export the adjusted costs that they'll be assigning to users,
rather
than the basic costs appearing on the provider's monthly invoice.
Once the cost data is in Conductor,
adjusting the probabilities of each provider account to favour
whichever provider could more cheaply host the specific range of
hardware profiles would be a relatively simple matter of
increasing
the selection probability percentages of cheaper provider
accounts,
by a configurable amount, at the expense of the more costly
provider
accounts.
Having completed the stack of modules'
calculations, the result is a final set of probabilities. At this
point, Conductor would roll the loaded dice and attempt to launch
on
the winner.
The UI to allow Administrators to enable modules, and to tune the parameters associated with them, could give a real-time representation of the effect of the current settings for a specific deployable. A certain type of Administrator would be very happy, tuning options and seeing an immediate change in, for example, a pie chart, which showed the resultant probability ranking percentages.