whirr-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Baclace <paul.bacl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Whirr overhead
Date Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:01:55 GMT
Allow me to chime in:  absolutely!  There should be no unnecessary EC2 
calls.  I rely on the instances file, although I suppose using spot 
instances could call it into question.  Perhaps spot instances should 
(or are) listed in a different file.


Paul

On 20110926 9:41 , Tom White wrote:
> Karel,
>
> I think using the instances file would be fine for run-script.
>
> Adrian, is it possible to disable some of these API calls in jclouds?
> E.g. DescribeImages is not needed for operations that work on running
> instances.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 9:28 AM, Karel Vervaeke<karel@outerthought.org>  wrote:
>> I have been using whirr call simple scripts using whirr run-script,
>> but I have to say it's running way too slow to be usable.
>>
>> Running parallel-ssh to call a simple script on a 2-node EC2 cluster
>> takes about 7 seconds.
>> Running the same script (more or less) takes more than 1min 30 secs.
>> I know that's comparing I'm apples with comfy chairs: Whirr is making
>> EC2 calls to check regions,zones, available hosts, ...
>> but all those EC2 api calls (I have counted 17, see attached log file)
>> come with a price (well, with time).
>>
>> Are the EC2 calls really necessary? Maybe we should skip them
>> alltogether (look in the instances file) or provide caching cache the
>> EC2 results...
>>
>> WDYT?
>> Karel
>>
>> --
>> Karel Vervaeke
>> http://outerthought.org/
>> Open Source Content Applications
>> Makers of Kauri, Daisy CMS and Lily
>>


Mime
View raw message