Re: [eman] Entity identification method

["Chris Verges" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Christian et al.,

How about the following two use cases to augment the existing
power-allocation-per-virtual-machine scenario?

	1. "Grouped" outlets on a smart PDU

	2. Tenant submetering on a smart meter

In the first scenario, several smart PDUs allow the user to create a
user-defined grouping that consists of several outlets.  Physical
outlets 1 and 7, for example, could be grouped together as logical
entity "server01".  This mapping could be created using the existing
ENTITY-MIB architecture.  The power data for both the physical and
logical entities are useful to facilities and IT managers to understand
power flow and usage.

In the second scenario, a smart meter provides submetering for a
commercial rental building.  Such buildings often occur turnover in
tenants.  A submeter that meters each circuit in the building, for
example, could maintain that data in both granular and aggregate form.
When a tenant moves in, the facilities manager can create a new logical
entity for that tenant and map the physical circuit entries to the
tenant's logical entity.  This enables both real-time power usage and
management on an individual circuit basis (useful for troubleshooting
facilities problems) as well as on a customized aggregate basis (useful
for the bean counters who have to allocate costs).

Here's an interesting question as far as implementation is concerned ...
why not implement pmPhysicalMap and pmLogicalMap tables (like
entLPMappingTable) to map the pmIndex entity to the appropriate physical
or logical entity (1:1 only?)

Chris


-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 7:14 PM
To: Chris Verges
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [eman] Entity identification method

Hello Chris,

I don't have any concrete suggestions for implementing virtual entity
energy usage support. I'm still at the stage of trying to see what the
requirements and framework is for the work. There seems to be a focus on
the MIBs themselves, when without good requirements its hard to see what
needs they are meeting. The work of the eman WG could address IP type
servers only or the MIBs could also be used in other telecommunication
equipment i.e. those used in outside plant. I'm encouraged to see
Bruce's email on topics for discussion as think its in important to get
consensus/understanding on these before the MIBs are developed.

Please see my comment below marked [CNG].

Regards, Christian

On 1/11/2010 11:39 PM, Chris Verges wrote:
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Are you looking to allocate actual energy usage by a virtual entity, 
> like the amount of energy used by a virtual machine running on a 
> shared server? Certainly an interesting problem ... gives a lot of 
> room for innovation for different vendors to find solutions.
>
[CNG] I agree its an interesting problem. In some instances it may be
possible to allocate the actual energy however in many cases it would be
very difficult/impossible. In these more difficult cases it may be
possible to simply report the identities of the virtual/logical entities
that are included in the physical measurement.
>
> From a MIB standpoint, it seems like the requirement is to have a 
> flexible power-related MIB that can either map to physical or logical 
> entities. One question is, "where do you want those entities
enumerated?"
>
> Are virtual entities that need to be mapped to power usage normally 
> enumerated in ENTITY-MIB in the "logical" table?
>
> If so, perhaps something like this would fit the bill:
>
> POWER-ENTITY-MIB:
>
> pwrEntityTable
>
> pwrEntityEntry
>
> pwrEntityIndex
>
> pwrEntityName
>
> pwrEntityType
>
> pwrEntityParent
>
> pwrEntityPhysical
>
> pwrEntityLogical
>
> The pwrEntity[Physical|Logical] objects would point to the appropriate

> index in ENTITY-MIB.
>
> However, if the virtual entities are not enumerated in ENTITY-MIB, the

> pwrEntityLogical column is probably overkill. The virtual entities can

> be enumerated in pwrEntityTable and linked to the Physical meter using

> the pwrEntityParent column, much like how ENTITY-MIB currently manages

> references between parent and component entities. It would just 
> involve a new pwrEntityType being added for "virtual" or something 
> similar.
>
> So what's the typical use case as these virtual entities relate to 
> ENTITY-MIB?
>
[CNG] I'm not sure the typical case. Either of the approaches above
could be sufficient but I think it depends on what people agree on with
respect to virtual entities and how the data collected on them would be
used.
>
> Chris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf 
> Of Christian Groves
> Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2010 8:14 PM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [eman] Entity identification method
>
> Hello Juergen,
>
> I think distinguishing the two cases is the correct way to go.
>
> I agree that reporting energy consumption for logical entities is a 
> challenge and not straight forward. I guess there are a number of ways

> to look at this problem and how address the problem depends on the 
> ambition level.
>
> As you rightly mention where there is partial use of a physical 
> resource by a logical entity it is very difficult to have an exact 
> figure.
>
> However I think the "grain size" of the measurement comes into play. 
> For example if we have a large gateway implementing several virtual 
> gateways if we take an overall measurement then we have the problem 
> determining a figure. If the however the virtual gateways were each 
> assigned a physical rack and the measurements were taken at a rack 
> level then we have a more precise estimate of contribution of each 
> virtual gateway to the overall picture.
>
> For me logical entities ultimately will be realised by physical 
> hardware. The key is understanding the relationship between these 
> entities. Thus I think virtualization can in some way be supported by 
> allowing energy consumption reports for physical entities to indicate 
> if/what logical entities they relate to. As they say information is 
> power (pardon the pun :-) ).
>
> Regards, Christian
>
> On 29/10/2010 12:48 PM, Juergen Quittek wrote:
>
> > Hi Christian,
>
> >
>
> > Thank you for this interesting comment.
>
> >
>
> > It looks like we have to distinguish two cases: power state 
> > monitoring
>
> > and energy consumption monitoring.
>
> >
>
> > For a logical entity and a virtual machine it may be well possible 
> > to
>
> > report on their power state. However, reporting their energy
>
> > consumption seems to be a tough challenge at least if be base it on
> real measurements.
>
> >
>
> > It is well feasible to measure energy consumption of physical
>
> > entities, but if you have a logical entity that consumes only 
> > partial
>
> > resources of a physical entity, then precise measurement of the 
> > energy
>
> > consumption will be hardly possible. Estimations may be possible 
> > based
>
> > on a model of the logical entity, but I don't know how good such
> models can be.
>
> >
>
> > Thanks,
>
> >
>
> > Juergen
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > On 29.10.10 03:25 "Christian Groves"<[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> Hello
>
> >>
>
> >> I've just started to digest the various drafts of the eman wg and I
>
> >> see the comment below on logical entities. It's not clear to me
>
> >> how/if network virtualization is intended on being handled in the
> eman work.
>
> >>
>
> >> In networks there's now a trend towards network virtualization and
>
> >> cloud computing with the different "X" as a service models (i.e.
>
> >> Amazon EC2 "platform as a service" running different server
>
> >> instances). Even in today's networks we have physical gateways that
>
> >> are virtualized into different logical gateways. For example:
>
> >> H.248/Megaco virtual MG (VMG) concept.
>
> >>
>
> >> I think it would be advantageous to be able to assess the energy
>
> >> consumption of the VMGs or instances (which are logical entities)
>
> >> independent of the physical gateway so that a customers energy use
>
> >> may be recording. Will this sort of functionality be allowed?
>
> >>
>
> >> Regards, Christian
>
> >>
>
> >> On 29/10/2010 1:22 AM, Juergen Quittek wrote:
>
> >>> Hi Chris,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> I think it may become very difficult if we want to assess energy
>
> >>> consumption of logical entities. It seems to be reasonable and
>
> >>> practical to limit energy consumption measurements to physical
>
> >>> entities. The ENERGY AWARE MIB module
>
> >>> (draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib) and the POWER MIB
>
> >>> (draft-quittek-power-mib-02) went this way.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Just using entPhysicalIndex solves some of the problem you
mentioned.
>
> >>> Particularly, you don't need a mapping table to entities if you
>
> >>> restrict Yourself to entPhysicalIndex.
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Thanks,
>
> >>>
>
> >>> Juergen
>
> >>>
>
> >>> On 28.10.10 13:34 "Chris Verges"<[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> >>>
>
> >>>> Hi Jurgen and all,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> The more I've been thinking about these scenarios, the more
>
> >>>> something doesn't seem quite right. I'll try to explain my 
> >>>> thought
>
> >>>> process behind this and see if my concerns/confusions get
captured.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> ENTITY-MIB provides enumerated lists of physical and logical
>
> >>>> entities on the system. The indices in both lists are maintained
>
> >>>> separately, so there is not a single, unique identifier provided.
>
> >>>> Because of this, the MIBs being discussed by the EMAN WG must 
> >>>> only
>
> >>>> reference to one type (physical or logical) and are limited to
> that without additional work.
>
> >>>> At some point in my mind, I'm asking myself the question, "What's
>
> >>>> the point of linking to ENTITY-MIB?"
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> More on that question in later scenarios below ...
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> One possibility would be to create a separate mapping table that
>
> >>>> gives a guaranteed unique index based on all entities, regardless
>
> >>>> of type. The physical vs. logical extensions would then become
>
> >>>> sparse tables that augment this. For example:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> ENTITY-MIB : entityGeneral.entGeneralTable.entGeneralEntry
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | entGeneralIndex | entGeneralDescr | ... |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 1 | PDU Chassis | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 2 | Meter #1 | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 3 | Meter #2 | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 4 | Remote Meter #1 | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> ENTITY-MIB : entityPhysical.entPhysicalTable.entPhysicalEntry
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | entGeneralIndex | entVendorType | ... |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 1 | enterprises.foo | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 2 | enterprises.foo | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 3 | enterprises.foo | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+-----------------+-----+
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> ENTITY-MIB : entityLogical.entLogicalTable.entLogicalEntry
>
> >>>> +-----------------+----------------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | entGeneralIndex | entLogicalCommunity | ... |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+----------------------+-----+
>
> >>>> | 4 | remote-power-group-1 | |
>
> >>>> +-----------------+----------------------+-----+
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> It seems like this 'entGeneralIndex' concept is what's missing 
> >>>> from
>
> >>>> the current ENTITY-MIB, and is causing problems when thinking 
> >>>> about
>
> >>>> local and remote power data being reported by the same agent.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Another possibility would be to choose one -- entLogicalIndex, 
> >>>> most
>
> >>>> likely -- and require that anyone who wants to implement the EMAN
>
> >>>> WG MIBs to always create an entLogicalEntry for the power data. 
> >>>> In
>
> >>>> this context, the entLogicalTable fills the role of 
> >>>> entGeneralTable
>
> >>>> as described above. For all entPhysicalTable entries, there would
>
> >>>> need to be a corresponding entry in entLogicalTable with a 1:1
>
> >>>> mapping between them. For all remote entries, there would be a
>
> >>>> unique entry in entLogicalTable. Of course, this would add some
>
> >>>> additional overhead on the part of the implementer, but isn't too
> overburdening.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> A third possibility is that ENTITY-MIB just doesn't do what we 
> >>>> need
>
> >>>> in its present form and we need to think about enumerating power
>
> >>>> sensors separately from other components/sensors on the system. 
> >>>> It
>
> >>>> seems like entPhysicalTable gives a good starting template for a
>
> >>>> new 'POWER-ENTITY-MIB', but can be extended to include support 
> >>>> for
>
> >>>> remote agents. The difference would be a clean break from the
>
> >>>> legacy ENTITY-MIB structure.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> And with that, I look forward to others' feedback and ideas on
>
> >>>> solving this problem!
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thanks,
>
> >>>> Chris
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>
> >>>> Behalf Of Chris Verges
>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 9:26 PM
>
> >>>> To: Juergen Quittek; Benoit Claise; eman mailing list
>
> >>>> Subject: Re: [eman] Entity identification method (was: EMAN
>
> >>>> chartered itemsversus drafts)
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Hi Juergen and all,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Agreed that a common ID method makes sense, and ENTITY-MIB seems 
> >>>> to
>
> >>>> be a good choice. In case (c) from your list, wouldn't the remote
>
> >>>> agent condition be handled by ENTITY-MIB supporting a logical
>
> >>>> entity that is the remote agent iself? Since the logical entity 
> >>>> is
>
> >>>> in the ENTITY-MIB table, it would be given a unique ID mixed
>
> >>>> amongst the other logical and physical entities.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> At that point, should all of the MIBs being discussed in the EMAN
>
> >>>> WG be sparse table augmentations of ENTITY-MIB?
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thanks,
>
> >>>> Chris
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
>
> >>>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>
> >>>> Behalf Of Juergen Quittek
>
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 6:01 AM
>
> >>>> To: Benoit Claise; eman mailing list
>
> >>>> Subject: [eman] Entity identification method (was: EMAN chartered
>
> >>>> items versus drafts)
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Hi Benoit and all,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I agree that we should find a common identification method for
>
> >>>> entities used by all MIB modules. This does not apply to the 
> >>>> POWER
>
> >>>> MIB only, but to all MIB modules in the eman WG.
>
> >>>> The modules will use an entity ID as index for their tables.
>
> >>>> Which entity is identified by the index can be resolved by other
>
> >>>> MIB modules, such as the POWER AWARE MIB module
>
> >>>> (draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib) or the ENTITY MIB module 
> >>>> (RFC
>
> >>>> 4133).
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> I see three basic scenarios for the entity identification:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> a) a device just reports on its own power state and energy
>
> >>>> consumption and it reports on its own as a single unit.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Then we have a single index only stating "it's me".
>
> >>>> Such a device usually does not need further identification
>
> >>>> of itself, because typically there are sufficient other
>
> >>>> MIB modules for this purpose running in the same SNMP engine,
>
> >>>> that provide information about the device's IP address,
>
> >>>> manufacturer, operating system, etc. In such a case a
>
> >>>> 'trivial' index, such as '0' should be used in order to
>
> >>>> keep it simple in this most simple case.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> b) a device reports on its own but not just as a single unit
>
> >>>> but it reports power states and energy consumption for its
>
> >>>> individual components, for example it may report separately
>
> >>>> on contained hard drives, line cards, back planes,
>
> >>>> processor boards, etc.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> In such a case, identification of these components as
>
> >>>> individual entities would be required. The ENTITY MIB
>
> >>>> module was designed for this purpose and would be a good
>
> >>>> choice here. Also the POWER AWARE MIB module would be
>
> >>>> useful in this case.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> c) a device reports on energy consumption of other, remote
>
> >>>> devices. Then remote devices (and potentially also their
>
> >>>> contained components need to be identified. For
>
> >>>> identifying remote components there is the POWER AWARE MIB
>
> >>>> module that has been designed for this purpose. As far as
>
> >>>> I understand, the ENTITY MIB module is not applicable to
>
> >>>> remote devices.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> In summary,
>
> >>>> - if you need to report on remote entities (case c)),
>
> >>>> you need the POWER AWARE MIB module,
>
> >>>> - if you report only on entities locally contained
>
> >>>> in the reporting device (case b)), you can use
>
> >>>> the POWER AWARE MIB or the ENTITY MIB
>
> >>>> - if you report just on your own as a single device
>
> >>>> (case a)), identification is trivial
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Hence, my recommendation (stated for POWER-STATE MIB and ENERGY 
> >>>> MIB
>
> >>>> in
>
> >>>> draft-quittek-power-mib-02) would be:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> If there is an implementation of the POWER AWARE MIB module
>
> >>>> instantiated in the local SNMP engine, then you SHOULD (or MUST?)
>
> >>>> use it for indexing (pmIndex).
>
> >>>> If this is not the case but there is an ENTITY MIB instance
>
> >>>> available, then you SHOULD use this one (entPhysicalIndex).
>
> >>>> If neither of this MIB modules is available you should use index 
> >>>> 0
>
> >>>> only and be limited to report on the local device as a single
> entity only.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> That's just my view. Certainly, there are more ways of entity
>
> >>>> identification. I look forward to discussing them.
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Thanks,
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> Juergen
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>> On 26.10.10 11:44 "Benoit Claise"<[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> >>>>
>
> >>>>> Hi Juergen,
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Something key is to agree on the Power Monitor index for all MIB
>
> >>>>> modules, which IMHO should be part of the Energy-aware Networks
>
> >>>>> and Devices MIB module, but reuse in the other MIB modules.
>
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Regards, Benoit.
>
> >>>>>> Hi Benoit,
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> Thanks for checking all drafts.
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> I don't think that draft-quittek-power-mib-02 makes significant
>
> >>>>>> contributions to the Energy-aware Networks and Devices MIB.
>
> >>>>>> It just covers the Power and Energy Monitoring MIB and the
>
> >>>>>> Battery
>
> >>>> MIB.
>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
>
> >>>>>> Juergen
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>> On 26.10.10 08:22 "Benoit Claise"<[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Dear all,
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> I went through the exercise of mapping the existing six
>
> >>>>>>> chartered items with the existing draft content.
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> _Energy Management Requirements_
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quittek-power-monitoring-requ
> >>>>>>> ir
>
> >>>>>>> emen
>
> >>>>>>> ts-02
>
> >>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-norwin-energy-consider/
>
> >>>>>>> _
>
> >>>>>>> Energy Management Framework_
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-power-management-arch-
> >>>>>>> 02
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> _Energy-aware Networks and Devices MIB_
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-parello-eman-energy-aware-mib
> >>>>>>> -0
>
> >>>>>>> 0
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quittek-power-mib-02
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> _Power and Energy Monitoring MIB_
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-claise-energy-monitoring-mib-
> >>>>>>> 06
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quittek-power-mib-02
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> _Battery MIB_
>
> >>>>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-quittek-power-mib-02
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> _Energy Management Applicability_
>
> >>>>>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-tychon-eman-applicabilit
> >>>>>>> y-
>
> >>>>>>> stat
>
> >>>>>>> ement/
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Please let me know if I made any mistakes or if I missed any
> draft?
>
> >>>>>>>
>
> >>>>>>> Regards, Benoit.
>
> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>>>>>> eman mailing list
>
> >>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> >>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>>> eman mailing list
>
> >>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
> >>>
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>> eman mailing list
>
> >>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> eman mailing list
>
> >> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > eman mailing list
>
> > [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> eman mailing list
>
> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/eman
>