Current way of rating does not work for every situation.

[KRuelY]

The formula that we have for linux-container does not work for every situation. The current formula will only work when none of the metering/rating/pricing plan changes.

The differences between non-time-based and time-based usage is that non-time-based's usage is independent of time(It is not consuming continuously). This means that anytime after metering/rating/pricing plan changes, the usage submitted by the service provider would be put into the new plan instead of the old plan (EDIT: It is possible for early submission to get tagged with the wrong price when the new pricing plan is not yet onboarded).

On the other hand, when time-based usage's metering/rating/pricing plan changes, there is no events that would trigger the switch to the new plan because currently the bridge is submitting what it receives from cf events and there is no cf events for any business related changes.

Example:

Current implementation

1. Bridge / time-based submitter submit a usage from cf-event to abacus collector.
2. Abacus understand that a service instance is running and it attaches the price of the time-based at the submission time to the usage doc.
3. When we grab the report, the usage would be metered/rated using the price at the submission time.

This works fine when the price remains the same between the submission time and reporting time.

But when the pricing(or metering / rating) changes between the submission time and reporting time, the charge reflected in the report would be rated using the price at the submission time, and there would be no charge associated with the new price.

Example: An application is running from February 1st to February 4th consuming 1 GB-hour.

1. In February 1st, Bridge / time-based submitter submit a usage from cf-event to abacus collector.
2. Abacus collector put this usage in the meteringPlanA/ratingPlanA/pricingPlanA.
3. In February 3rd, one of the plan, lets say the pricingPlanA changes to pricingPlanB.
4. During the reporting time, the application would be rated using pricingPlanA, and abacus would not be aware of meteringPlanA/ratingPlanA/pricingPlanB.

Pricing plan A = $1 / GB

Pricing plan B = $2 / GB

Current implementation would report: 4 days * 24 hour / day * 1 GB / hour * $1 / GB = $96.

What should be reported is: 2 days * 24 hour / day * 1 GB / hour * $1 / GB + 2 days * 24 hour / day * 1 GB / hour * $2 / GB = $48 + $96 = $144

I would like to start a discussion on the proper solution to solve this issue. Some points:

1. Do we need the separation of time-based and non-time-based?
2. When getting the report / rating, pass multiple plans that are used during the period? Adding effective dates to each plans. (Using the example above, it would be passing pricingPlanA with effective date 1st to 3rd, and pricingPlanB with effective date 3rd to 4th )
3. Anything that comes to mind that I am missing / should consider?

Thanks!

[cf-gitbot]

We have created an issue in Pivotal Tracker to manage this:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/story/show/119243877

The labels on this github issue will be updated when the story is started.

[jsdelfino]

The formula that we have for linux-container does not work for every situation. The current formula will only work when none of the metering/rating/pricing plan changes.

I think that there's a simple solution here: just have the program that introduces the plan change reset the usage for the impacted resource instances by re-submitting the latest usage for these resource instances. This will then give you a clear distinction between the usage metered/rated with the old plans and the usage metered/rated with the new plans, at all the relevant levels of aggregation.

Re-submitting the latest usage for the resources impacted by a plan change is going to generate minimal additional storage and network traffic compared to all the traffic generated by discrete usage metering. Finally, whatever solution we eventually adopt will need the additional storage anyway to to be able to separate usage under the old vs new plans.

[jsdelfino]

Any thoughts on this? I also just commented on issue #88 along the same lines.

[KRuelY]

What you commented on issue #88 is similar to what I had in mind, which is submitting a usage or some sort of notification to start a new accumulation('reset'). My two concerns were the fact that we are submitting a usage from a 'fake' cf event and the traffic that it would generate, so I was interested to see what others' thoughts are.

Aside from my two concerns, I saw that this issue(318) is similar with issue 88 and thought that the ideal solution should solves both. I think that the solution of submitting a usage to 'reset' will solve both of the issue.

[astefanova]

We are currently working on the issue #422. We had the idea of implementing a separate DB to store latest measurements for each application. These measurements will be carried-on between months by the renewer. That way we won't need to access all events in order to know which of them we should pass on to the next month.

The same idea can be applied to this issue. We are thinking of implementing a new "carry-on" component, that would:

• use a new "carry-on" function in the metering plan
• based on the result of the function it will save the last time-based event in its own/separate DB

Then the renewer will transfer the usage to the current month.

If the plans change we will already have all time-based usage in the carry-on DB. We could then add the functionality to re-submitting all events in the collector with the new plan. This new functionality can either be in the renewer or even a new component that is only responsible for this.