diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'design_docs')
| -rw-r--r-- | design_docs/notification-alarm-evaluator.rst | 251 |
1 files changed, 251 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/design_docs/notification-alarm-evaluator.rst b/design_docs/notification-alarm-evaluator.rst new file mode 100644 index 00000000..750e39c0 --- /dev/null +++ b/design_docs/notification-alarm-evaluator.rst @@ -0,0 +1,251 @@ +.. + This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported + License. + + http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode + +============================ +Notification Alarm Evaluator +============================ + +.. NOTE:: + This is spec draft of brlueprint for OpenStack Ceilomter Liberty. + To see current version: https://review.openstack.org/172893 + To track development activity: + https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/notification-alarm-evaluator + +https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/notification-alarm-evaluator + +This blueprint proposes to add a new alarm evaluator for handling alarms on +events passed from other OpenStack services, that provides event-driven alarm +evaluation which makes new sequence in Ceilometer instead of the polling-based +approach of the existing Alarm Evaluator, and realizes immediate alarm +notification to end users. + +Problem description +=================== + +As an end user, I need to receive alarm notification immediately once +Ceilometer captured an event which would make alarm fired, so that I can +perform recovery actions promptly to shorten downtime of my service. +The typical use case is that an end user set alarm on "compute.instance.update" +in order to trigger recovery actions once the instance status has changed to +'shutdown' or 'error'. It should be nice that an end user can receive +notification within 1 second after fault observed as the same as other helth- +check mechanisms can do in some cases. + +The existing Alarm Evaluator is periodically querying/polling the databases +in order to check all alarms independently from other processes. This is good +approach for evaluating an alarm on samples stored in a certain period. +However, this is not efficient to evaluate an alarm on events which are emitted +by other OpenStack servers once in a while. + +The periodical evaluation leads delay on sending alarm notification to users. +The default period of evaluation cycle is 60 seconds. It is recommended that +an operator set longer interval than configured pipeline interval for +underlying metrics, and also longer enough to evaluate all defined alarms +in certain period while taking into account the number of resources, users and +alarms. + +Proposed change +=============== + +The proposal is to add a new event-driven alarm evaluator which receives +messages from Notification Agent and finds related Alarms, then evaluates each +alarms; + +* New alarm evaluator could receive event notification from Notification Agent + by which adding a dedicated notifier as a publisher in pipeline.yaml + (e.g. notifier://?topic=event_eval). + +* When new alarm evaluator received event notification, it queries alarm + database by Project ID and Resource ID written in the event notification. + +* Found alarms are evaluated by referring event notification. + +* Depending on the result of evaluation, those alarms would be fired through + Alarm Notifier as the same as existing Alarm Evaluator does. + +This proposal also adds new alarm type "notification" and "notification_rule". +This enables users to create alarms on events. The separation from other alarm +types (such as "threshold" type) is intended to show different timing of +evaluation and different format of condition, since the new evaluator will +check each event notification once it received whereas "threshold" alarm can +evaluate average of values in certain period calculated from multiple samples. + +The new alarm evaluator handles Notification type alarms, so we have to change +existing alarm evaluator to exclude "notification" type alarms from evaluation +targets. + +Alternatives +------------ + +There was similar blueprint proposal "Alarm type based on notification", but +the approach is different. The old proposal was to adding new step (alarm +evaluations) in Notification Agent every time it received event from other +OpenStack services, whereas this proposal intends to execute alarm evaluation +in another component which can minimize impact to existing pipeline processing. + +Another approach is enhancement of existing alarm evaluator by adding +notification listener. However, there are two issues; 1) this approach could +cause stall of periodical evaluations when it receives bulk of notifications, +and 2) this could break the alarm portioning i.e. when alarm evaluator received +notification, it might have to evaluate some alarms which are not assign to it. + +Data model impact +----------------- + +Resource ID will be added to Alarm model as an optional attribute. +This would help the new alarm evaluator to filter out non-related alarms +while querying alarms, otherwise it have to evaluate all alarms in the project. + +REST API impact +--------------- + +Alarm API will be extended as follows; + +* Add "notification" type into alarm type list +* Add "resource_id" to "alarm" +* Add "notification_rule" to "alarm" + +Sample data of Notification-type alarm:: + + { + "alarm_actions": [ + "http://site:8000/alarm" + ], + "alarm_id": null, + "description": "An alarm", + "enabled": true, + "insufficient_data_actions": [ + "http://site:8000/nodata" + ], + "name": "InstanceStatusAlarm", + "notification_rule": { + "event_type": "compute.instance.update", + "query" : [ + { + "field" : "traits.state", + "type" : "string", + "value" : "error", + "op" : "eq", + }, + ] + }, + "ok_actions": [], + "project_id": "c96c887c216949acbdfbd8b494863567", + "repeat_actions": false, + "resource_id": "153462d0-a9b8-4b5b-8175-9e4b05e9b856", + "severity": "moderate", + "state": "ok", + "state_timestamp": "2015-04-03T17:49:38.406845", + "timestamp": "2015-04-03T17:49:38.406839", + "type": "notification", + "user_id": "c96c887c216949acbdfbd8b494863567" + } + +"resource_id" will be refered to query alarm and will not be check permission +and belonging of project. + +Security impact +--------------- + +None + +Pipeline impact +--------------- + +None + +Other end user impact +--------------------- + +None + +Performance/Scalability Impacts +------------------------------- + +When Ceilomter received a number of events from other OpenStack services in +short period, this alarm evaluator can keep working since events are queued in +a messaging queue system, but it can cause delay of alarm notification to users +and increase the number of read and write access to alarm database. + +"resource_id" can be optional, but restricting it to mandatory could be reduce +performance impact. If user create "notification" alarm without "resource_id", +those alarms will be evaluated every time event occurred in the project. +That may lead new evaluator heavy. + +Other deployer impact +--------------------- + +New service process have to be run. + +Developer impact +---------------- + +Developers should be aware that events could be notified to end users and avoid +passing raw infra information to end users, while defining events and traits. + +Implementation +============== + +Assignee(s) +----------- + +Primary assignee: + r-mibu + +Other contributors: + None + +Ongoing maintainer: + None + +Work Items +---------- + +* New event-driven alarm evaluator + +* Add new alarm type "notification" as well as AlarmNotificationRule + +* Add "resource_id" to Alarm model + +* Modify existing alarm evaluator to filter out "notification" alarms + +* Add new config parameter for alarm request check whether accepting alarms + without specifying "resource_id" or not + +Future lifecycle +================ + +This proposal is key feature to provide information of cloud resources to end +users in real-time that enables efficient integration with user-side manager +or Orchestrator, whereas currently those information are considered to be +consumed by admin side tool or service. +Based on this change, we will seek orchestrating scenarios including fault +recovery and add useful event definition as well as additional traits. + +Dependencies +============ + +None + +Testing +======= + +New unit/scenario tests are required for this change. + +Documentation Impact +==================== + +* Proposed evaluator will be described in the developer document. + +* New alarm type and how to use will be explained in user guide. + +References +========== + +* OPNFV Doctor project: https://wiki.opnfv.org/doctor + +* Blueprint "Alarm type based on notification": + https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ceilometer/+spec/alarm-on-notification |