Future feature: Dashboard

#1

A better MAAS GUI experience with thousands of nodes

Whilst many MAAS deployments are modest, there is strong growth in large-scale deployments.

  • Thank you for trusting MAAS with your large deployments. We want to hear from users with 100s and 1000s of nodes, about how we can better meet you needs.

  • This industry-shift has been famously characterised as ā€˜raising cattleā€™ rather than ā€˜keeping petsā€™; this matches our philosophy of bringing a cloud-like experience to metal.

  • The API and CLI are obviously a key way to work at scale, to script your solutions. In addition, the MAAS design team is looking for ideas and feedback on the ā€˜Dashboardā€™ concept.

  • Also, do note the performance and stats metrics added in 2.6

Open questions:

  • What new challenges do you face, moving from 100s to 1000s of machines?

  • What kind of high-level summaries do you wish for?

  • What information is easy to miss, or difficult to manage, with a large MAAS?

  • Whatā€™s not great with the current GUI for a large MAAS? If we could improve one thing, what would that be?

  • Charts and graphs: what information-visualisations do you find useful? You might have examples from other products, or other domains that you would like to see in MAAS.

All feedback welcome.

#2

Hereā€™s an idea:

When dealing with KVM pods and Virsh machines, from the machines tab it would be nice to see the relationship between the physical nodes and the children.
example:

NODE +
     | - VM01
     | - VM02

I find that tracking down which pod a virtual machine physically lives in is a little weird, particularly if you have a large mix of Physical machines and Virtual machines.

That said I do find myself doing this when trying to track where my pets live. In the case of true cattle, Iā€™m usually herding those externally with Juju or scripting via CLI.

#3

So would group by: kvm host do it for you?

#4

Thatā€™s a really simple idea! Itā€™s perfect!
ā€¦ this is why Iā€™m not a UX persion :rofl: I wouldā€™ve completely over complicated that

#5

@lasseg have a look here

#6

I really like the new ā€œgroup byā€.

  • It would be really good if the group listing could be expand or collapsed.
    That would make the listing clearer when you have hundreds of machines.

  • Something that I can see the benefit of is a more developed meta data concept.
    Today we have tag. What if we could have user defined identifiers that you use to further define and track an object. Like site, building, rack, machine type etc. Probably all implementation will have different needs. And that user defined tags can of cause be used in filters and grouping.
    One solution I have seen in other web interfaces with very many objects is a type of configurable ā€œgroupingsā€.
    Like a type of dynamic folders/groups. Or a like a saved filter.

  • It should also be possible to set tags/metadata on multiple machines at once e.g. from a filter search. And the use that tag/metadata as a constraints in juju. It would be really powerful.

  • One challenge vi have today with just a few hundred machines is to actually find the physical HW.
    We have slowed that with defining a HW as the OBM interface. Giving that interface a name that represent the physical placement. ---.domain. e.g. 209-1040-32-79e2f9.obm.domain.
    And then we have a script that can translate MAAS name to HW name and the opposite and also enable the ID-light on the HW.
    So something in MAAS that make it easy to identify HW placement from MAAS. And also finding the MAAS machine from a given HW.

#7

Hi lasseg,

Thanks a lot for your feedback! :slight_smile:

You can expand and collapse the groups by using the PLUS/MINUS at the end of each grouped header:

36
Screenshot 2019-08-15 at 16.22.36.png2878x234 15 KB

You can tag multiple machines through the take actions menu, just select all the ones you want > open the drop down for take action and select Tag:

00
Screenshot 2019-08-15 at 16.26.00.png2940x1580 349 KB