Statistics
| Branch: | Tag: | Revision:

root / README @ e4f08c46

History | View | Annotate | Download (10.8 kB)

1
Cluster tools (h-aneti?)
2
========================
3

    
4
These are some simple cluster tools for fixing common problems. Right now N+1
5
and rebalancing are included.
6

    
7
.. contents::
8

    
9
Cluster N+1 solver
10
------------------
11

    
12
This program runs a very simple brute force algorithm over the instance
13
placement space in order to determine the shortest number of replace-disks
14
needed to fix the cluster. Note this means we won't get a balanced cluster,
15
just one that passes N+1 checks.
16

    
17
Also note that the set of all instance placements on a 20/80 cluster is
18
(20*19)^80, that is ~10^200, so...
19

    
20
Algorithm
21
+++++++++
22

    
23
The algorithm is a simple two-phase process.
24

    
25
In phase 1 we determine the removal set, that is the set of instances that when
26
removed completely from the cluster, make it healthy again. The instances that
27
can go into the set are all the primary and secondary instances of the failing
28
nodes. The result from this phase is actually a list - we compute all sets of
29
the same minimum length.
30

    
31
So basically we aim to determine here: what is the minimum number of instances
32
that need to be removed (this is called the removal depth) and which are the
33
actual combinations that fit (called the list of removal sets). 
34

    
35
In phase 2, for each removal set computed in the previous phase, we take the
36
removed instances and try to determine where we can put them so that the
37
cluster is still passing N+1 checks. From this list of possible solutions
38
(called the list of solutions), we compute the one that has the smallest delta
39
from the original state (the delta is the number of replace disks that needs to
40
be run) and chose this as the final solution.
41

    
42
Implementation
43
++++++++++++++
44

    
45
Of course, a naive implementation based on the above description will run for
46
long periods of time, so the implementation has to be smart in order to prune
47
the solution space as eagerly as possible.
48

    
49
In the following, we use as example a set of test data (a cluster with 20
50
nodes, 80 instances that has 5 nodes failing N+1 checks for a total of 12
51
warnings).
52

    
53
On this set, the minimum depth is 4 (anything below fails), and for this depth
54
the current version of the algorithm generates 5 removal sets; a previous
55
version of the first phase generated a slightly different set of instances, with
56
two removal sets. For the original version of the algorithm:
57

    
58
- the first, non-optimized implementation computed a solution of delta=4 in 30
59
  minutes on server-class CPUs and was still running when aborted 10 minutes
60
  later
61
- the intermediate optimized version computed the whole solution space and
62
  found a delta=3 solution in around 10 seconds on a laptop-class CPU (total
63
  number of solutions ~600k)
64
- latest version on server CPUs (which actually computes more removal sets)
65
  computes depth=4 in less than a second and depth=5 in around 2 seconds, and
66
  depth=6 in less than 20 seconds; depth=8 takes under five minutes (this is
67
  10^10 bigger solution space)
68

    
69
Note that when (artificially) increasing the depth to 5 the number of removal
70
sets grows fast (~3000) and a (again artificial) depth 6 generates 61k removal
71
sets. Therefore, it is possible to restrict the number of solution sets
72
examined via a command-line option.
73

    
74
The factors that influence the run time are:
75

    
76
- the removal depth; for each increase with one of the depth, we grow the
77
  solution space by the number of nodes squared (since a new instance can live
78
  any two nodes as primary/secondary, therefore (almost) N times N); i.e.,
79
  depth=1 will create a N^2 solution space, depth two will make this N^4,
80
  depth three will be N^6, etc.
81
- the removal depth again; for each increase in the depth, there will be more
82
  valid removal sets, and the space of solutions increases linearly with the
83
  number of removal sets
84

    
85
Therefore, the smaller the depth the faster the algorithm will be; it doesn't
86
seem like this algorithm will work for clusters of 100 nodes and many many
87
small instances (e.g. 256MB instances on 16GB nodes).
88

    
89
Currently applied optimizations:
90

    
91
- when choosing where to place an instance in phase two, there are N*(N-1)
92
  possible primary/secondary options; however, if instead of iterating over all
93
  p * s pairs, we first determine the set of primary nodes that can hold this
94
  instance (without failing N+1), we can cut (N-1) secondary placements for
95
  each primary node removed; and since this applies at every iteration of phase
96
  2 it linearly decreases the solution space, and on full clusters, this can
97
  mean a four-five times reductions of solution space
98
- since the number of solutions is very high even for smaller depths (on the
99
  test data, depth=4 results in 1.8M solutions) we can't compare them at the
100
  end, so at each iteration in phase 2 we only promote the best solution out of
101
  our own set of solutions
102
- since the placement of instances can only increase the delta of the solution
103
  (placing a new instance will add zero or more replace-disks steps), it means
104
  the delta will only increase while recursing during phase 2; therefore, if we
105
  know at one point that we have a current delta that is equal or higher to the
106
  delta of the best solution so far, we can abort the recursion; this cuts a
107
  tremendous number of branches; further promotion of the best solution from
108
  one removal set to another can cut entire removal sets after a few recursions
109

    
110
Command line usage
111
++++++++++++++++++
112

    
113
Synopsis::
114

    
115
    hn1 [-n NODES_FILE] [-i INSTANCES_FILE] [-d START_DEPTH] \
116
        [-r MAX_REMOVALS] [-l MIN_DELTA] [-L MAX_DELTA] \
117
        [-p] [-C]
118

    
119
The -n and -i options change the names of the input files. The -d option
120
changes the start depth, as a higher depth can give (with a longer computation
121
time) a solution with better delta. The -r option restricts at each depth the
122
number of solutions considered - with r=1000 for example even depth=10 finishes
123
in less than a second.
124

    
125
The -p option will show the cluster state after the solution is implemented,
126
while the -C option will show the needed gnt-instance commands to implement
127
it.
128

    
129
The -l (--min-delta) and -L (--max-delta) options restrict the solution in the
130
following ways:
131

    
132
- min-delta will cause the search to abort early once we find a solution with
133
  delta less than or equal to this parameter; this can cause extremely fast
134
  results in case a desired solution is found quickly; the default value for
135
  this parameter is zero, so once we find a "perfect" solution we finish early
136
- max-delta causes rejection of valid solution but which have delta higher
137
  than the value of this parameter; this can reduce the depth of the search
138
  tree, with sometimes significant speedups; by default, this optimization is
139
  not used
140

    
141
Individually or combined, these two parameters can (if there are any) very
142
fast result; on our test data, depth=34 (max depth!) is solved in 2 seconds
143
with min-delta=0/max-delta=1 (since there is such a solution), and the
144
extremely low max-delta causes extreme pruning.
145

    
146
Cluster rebalancer
147
------------------
148

    
149
Compared to the N+1 solver, the rebalancer uses a very simple algorithm:
150
repeatedly try to move each instance one step, so that the cluster score
151
becomes better. We stop when no further move can improve the score.
152

    
153
The algorithm is divided into rounds (all identical):
154

    
155
#. Repeat for each instance:
156

    
157
    #. Compute score after the potential failover of the instance
158

    
159
    #. For each node that is different from the current primary/secondary
160

    
161
        #. Compute score after replacing the primary with this new node
162

    
163
        #. Compute score after replacing the secondary with this new node
164

    
165

    
166
    #. Out of this N*2+1 possible new scores (and their associated move) for
167
       this instance, we choose the one that is the best in terms of cluster
168
       score, and then proceed to the next instance
169

    
170
Since we don't compute all combinations of moves for instances (e.g. the first
171
instance's all moves Cartesian product with second instance's all moves, etc.)
172
but we proceed serially instance A, then B, then C, the total computations we
173
make in one steps is simply N(number of nodes)*2+1 times I(number of instances),
174
instead of (N*2+1)^I. So therefore the runtime for a round is trivial.
175

    
176
Further rounds are done, since the relocation of instances might offer better
177
places for instances which we didn't move, or simply didn't move to the best
178
place. It is possible to limit the rounds, but usually the algorithm finishes
179
after a few rounds by itself.
180

    
181
Note that the cluster *must* be N+1 compliant before this algorithm is run, and
182
will stay at each move N+1 compliant. Therefore, the final cluster will be N+1
183
compliant.
184

    
185
Single-round solutions
186
++++++++++++++++++++++
187

    
188
Single-round solutions have the very nice property that they are
189
incrementally-valid. In other words, if you have a 10-step solution, at each
190
step the cluster is both N+1 compliant and better than the previous step.
191

    
192
This means that you can stop at any point and you will have a better cluster.
193
For this reason, single-round solutions are recommended in the common case of
194
let's make this better. Multi-round solutions will be better though when adding
195
a couple of new, empty nodes to the cluster due to the many relocations needed.
196

    
197

    
198
Multi-round solutions
199
+++++++++++++++++++++
200

    
201
A multi-round solution (not for a single round), due to de-duplication of moves
202
(i.e. just put the instance directly in its final place, and not move it five
203
times around) loses both these properties. It might be that it's not possible to
204
directly put the instance on the final nodes. So it can be possible that yes,
205
the cluster is happy in the final solution and nice, but you cannot do the steps
206
in the shown order. Solving this (via additional instance move(s)) is left to
207
the user.
208

    
209
Command line usage
210
++++++++++++++++++
211

    
212
Synopsis::
213

    
214
    hbal [-n NODES_FILE] [-i INSTANCES_FILE] \
215
         [-r MAX_ROUNDS] \
216
         [-p] [-C]
217

    
218
The -n and -i options change the names of the input files. The -r option
219
restricts the maximum number of rounds (and is more of safety measure).
220

    
221
The -p option will show the cluster state after the solution is implemented,
222
while the -C option will show the needed gnt-instance commands to implement
223
it.
224

    
225
Integration with Ganeti
226
-----------------------
227

    
228
The programs needs only the output of the node list and instance list. That is,
229
they need the following two commands to be run::
230

    
231
    gnt-node list -oname,mtotal,mfree,dtotal,dfree,pinst_list,sinst_list \
232
      --separator '|' --no-headers > nodes
233
    gnt-instance list -oname,admin_ram,sda_size \
234
      --separator '|' --no-head > instances
235

    
236
These two files should be saved under the names of 'nodes' and 'instances'.
237

    
238
When run, the programs will show some informational messages and output the
239
chosen solution, in the form of a list of instance name and chosen
240
primary/secondary nodes. The user then needs to run the necessary commands to
241
get the instances to live on those nodes.
242

    
243
Note that sda_size is less than the total disk size of an instance by 4352
244
MiB, so if disk space is at a premium the calculation could be wrong; in this
245
case, please adjust the values manually.