[occi-wg] Scheduling parameters

Mehdi Sheikhalishahi mehdi.alishahi at gmail.com
Wed Apr 15 05:56:00 CDT 2009

Dear All:

I need some information about the back-end part of current
Metascheduling for Clouds to provide some useful use-cases. In fact,
at first, Is there any Metascheduler for Clouds?

Can we classify OpenNebula as a Meta-scheduler for Clouds?
If yes, what is its current policies, algorithms and optimization for
Metascheduling in Clouds?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Edmonds, AndrewX
<andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
> Thanks Andre - I'll get around at some stage to supply some feedback to the GLUE WG, but EU deliverables take precedence for the moment ;-)
> I'd also agree on your point of requiring some means of resource description.
> Andy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andre Merzky [mailto:andremerzky at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Andre Merzky
> Sent: 14 April 2009 17:02
> To: Sam Johnston
> Cc: Edmonds, AndrewX; Andre Merzky; occi-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Scheduling parameters
> Hi Sam, Andrew,
> as Alexander and Alexis in the other branch of this thread
> (about scheduling), I just wanted to make sure that other
> OGF groups and standards get considered, and involved, *when
> appropriate*.  So I'm happy to hear that people have
> considered to use GLUE, and that GLUE MAY be usable as
> alternative representation, etc.
> Quoting [Sam Johnston] (Apr 14 2009):
>>    Further to Andrew's comments, I've thus far tried to avoid fixed
>>    schemas for anything, preferring tags and attributes and deferring a
>>    lot of that detail to supporting standards like OVF. I don't see a
>>    problem with using GLUE as an "alternate" representation and/or linking
>>    to it using <link>s or an extension.
>>    I hope that answers your question... basically I suggest that we
>>    [re]use it if we need to but not before.
>>    Sam
>>    On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Edmonds, AndrewX
>>    <[1]andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
>>>     Hey Andre - we reviewed GLUE in SLA at SOI to see if it would meet our
>>>     needs for infrastructure provisioning but for the most our initial
>>>     feelings are that it wouldn't suit. Would you have any other
>>>     viewpoint on this?
>>>     Andy
> Andrew, would you be able to feed back to the GLUE WG where
> you considered the standarde to fall short of your
> requirements?  They might be interested to learn about that.
>>    But anyway: do you expect GLUE to play any role in respect to the
>>    specification of (VM) resource requirements?
> I am actually not familiar enough with the topic to really
> have an educated opinion.  As an observer, it seems that the
> OCCI will need to touch resource description at some point
> or the other, to specify requirements to a VM for example,
> and GLUE seems to aim at that type of use case.  Not sure if
> any from the GLUE people are listening here.  If not, it
> might be worthewhile to get their feedback at next OGF, by
> going to their session...
> Cheers, Andre.
> --
> Nothing is ever easy.
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> Registered Number: E902934
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg

Best Regards,
Mehdi Sheikhalishahi

More information about the occi-wg mailing list