-----Original Message----- From: Flavio Percoco [mailto:flavio@redhat.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:32 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][tc][all] One Platform – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting)
Adrian, thx for your detailed mail.
Yes, I was hopeful of a silver bullet and as we’ve discussed before (I think it was Vancouver), there’s likely no silver bullet in this area. After that conversation, and some further experimentation, I found that even if Trove had access to a single Compute API, there were other significant complications further down the road, and I didn’t pursue the
On 11/04/16 18:05 +0000, Amrith Kumar wrote: project further at the time.
Adrian, Amrith,
I've spent enough time researching on this area during the last month and my conclusion is pretty much the above. There's no silver bullet in this area and I'd argue there shouldn't be one. Containers, bare metal and VMs differ in such a way (feature-wise) that it'd not be good, as far as deploying databases goes, for there to be one compute API. Containers allow for a different deployment architecture than VMs and so does bare metal.
[amrith] That is an interesting observation if we were developing a unified compute service. However, the issue for a project like Trove is not whether Containers, VM's and bare-metal are the same of different, but rather what a user is looking to get out of a deployment of a database in each of those compute environments.
We will be discussing Trove and Containers in Austin [1] and I’ll try and close the loop with you on this while we’re in Town. I still would like to come up with some way in which we can offer users the option of provisioning database as containers.
As the person leading this session, I'm also looking forward to providing such provisioning facilities to Trove users. Let's do this.
[amrith] In addition to hearing about how you plan to solve the problem, I would like to know what problem it is that you are planning to solve. Putting a database in a container is a solution, not a problem (IMHO). But the scope of this thread is broader so I'll stop at that.
Cheers, Flavio
Thanks,
-amrith
[1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/trove-newton-summit-container
From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.otto@rackspace.com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 12:54 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][tc][all] One Platform – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting)
Amrith,
I respect your point of view, and agree that the idea of a common compute API is attractive… until you think a bit deeper about what that would mean. We seriously considered a “global” compute API at the time we were first contemplating Magnum. However, what we came to learn through the journey of understanding the details of how such a thing would be implemented, that such an API would either be (1) the lowest common denominator (LCD) of all compute types, or (2) an exceedingly
complex interface.
You expressed a sentiment below that trying to offer choices for VM, Bare Metal (BM), and Containers for Trove instances “adds considerable
Roughly the same complexity would accompany the use of a comprehensive compute API. I suppose you were imagining an LCD approach. If that’s what you want, just use the existing Nova API, and load different compute drivers on different host aggregates. A single Nova client can produce VM, BM (Ironic), and Container (lbvirt-lxc) instances all with a common API (Nova) if it’s configured in this way. That’s what we do. Flavors determine which compute type you get.
If what you meant is that you could tap into the power of all the unique characteristics of each of the various compute types (through some modular extensibility framework) you’ll likely end up with complexity in Trove that is comparable to integrating with the native upstream APIs, along with the disadvantage of waiting for OpenStack to continually catch up to the pace of change of the various upstream systems on which it depends. This is a recipe for disappointment.
We concluded that wrapping native APIs is a mistake, particularly when they are sufficiently different than what the Nova API already offers. Containers APIs have limited similarities, so when you try to make a universal interface to all of them, you end up with a really complicated mess. It would be even worse if we tried to accommodate all the unique aspects of BM and VM as well. Magnum’s approach is to offer the upstream native API’s for the different container orchestration engines (COE), and compose Bays for them to run on that are built from the compute types that OpenStack supports. We do this by using different Heat orchestration templates (and conditional templates) to arrange a COE on the compute type of your choice. With that said, there are still gaps where not all storage or network drivers work with Ironic, and there are non-trivial security hurdles to clear to safely use Bays composed of libvirt-lxc instances in a multi-tenant environment.
My suggestion to get what you want for Trove is to see if the cloud has Magnum, and if it does, create a bay with the flavor type specified for whatever compute type you want, and then use the native API for the COE you selected for that bay. Start your instance on the COE, just like you use Nova today. This way, you have low complexity in Trove, and you can scale both the number of instances of your data nodes (containers), and the infrastructure on which they run (Nova instances).
Regards,
Adrian
On Apr 11, 2016, at 8:47 AM, Amrith Kumar <amrith@tesora.com> wrote:
Monty, Dims,
I read the notes and was similarly intrigued about the idea. In
from the perspective of projects like Trove, having a common Compute API is very valuable. It would allow the projects to have a single view of provisioning compute, as we can today with Nova and get the benefit of bare metal through Ironic, VM's through Nova VM's, and containers through nova-docker.
With this in place, a project like Trove can offer database-as-a- service on a spectrum of compute infrastructures as any end-user would expect. Databases don't always make sense in VM's, and while containers are great for quick and dirty prototyping, and VM's are great for much more,
are databases that will in production only be meaningful on bare-
complexity”. particular, there metal.
Therefore, if there is a move towards offering a common API for VM's, bare-metal and containers, that would be huge.
Without such a mechanism, consuming containers in Trove adds
complexity and leads to a very sub-optimal architecture (IMHO). FWIW, a working prototype of Trove leveraging Ironic, VM's, and nova-docker to provision databases is something I worked on a while ago, and have not revisited it since then (once the direction appeared to be Magnum for containers).
With all that said, I don't want to downplay the value in a container specific API. I'm merely observing that from the perspective of a consumer of computing services, a common abstraction is incredibly valuable.
Thanks,
-amrith
-----Original Message----- From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mordred@inaugust.com] Sent: Monday, April 11, 2016 11:31 AM To: Allison Randal <allison@lohutok.net>; Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com>; foundation@lists.openstack.org Cc: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][tc][all] One Platform – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting)
On 04/11/2016 09:43 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Davanum Srinivas < davanum@gmail.com>
wrote:
Reading unofficial notes [1], i found one topic very interesting: One Platform – How do we truly support containers and bare metal under a common API with VMs? (Ironic, Nova, adjacent communities e.g. Kubernetes, Apache Mesos etc)
Anyone present at the meeting, please expand on those few notes on etherpad? And how if any this feedback is getting back to the projects?
It was really two separate conversations that got conflated in the summary. One conversation was just being supportive of bare
considerable metal,
VMs, and containers within the OpenStack umbrella. The other conversation started with Monty talking about his work on
shade,
and how it wouldn't exist if more APIs were focused on the way
users
consume the APIs, and less an expression of the
implementation
details
of each project.
OpenStackClient was mentioned as a unified CLI for OpenStack focused more on the way users consume the CLI. (OpenStackSDK wasn't mentioned, but falls in the same general category of work.)
i.e. There wasn't anything new in the conversation, it was
more a
matter of the developers/TC members on the board sharing information about work that's already happening.
I agree with that - but would like to clarify the 'bare metal,
VMs and
containers' part a bit. (an in fact, I was concerned in the
meeting
that the messaging around this would be confusing because we
'supporting
bare metal' and 'supporting containers' mean two different things but
we use
one phrase to talk about it.
It's abundantly clear at the strategic level that having
OpenStack be
able to provide both VMs and Bare Metal as two different sorts of
resources
(ostensibly but not prescriptively via nova) is one of our
advantages.
We wanted to underscore how important it is to be able to do that,
and
wanted to underscore that so that it's really clear how important it is
any
time the "but cloud should just be VMs" sentiment arises.
The way we discussed "supporting containers" was quite different
and
was not about nova providing containers. Rather, it was about
reaching out
to our friends in other communities and working with them on making OpenStack the best place to run things like kubernetes or docker swarm. Those are systems that ultimately need to run, and it seems that
good
integration (like kuryr with libnetwork) can provide a really
strong
story. I think pretty much everyone agrees that there is not much
value
to us or the world for us to compete with kubernetes or docker.
So, we do want to be supportive of bare metal and containers -
but the
specific _WAY_ we want to be supportive of those things is
different
for each one.
Monty
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org? subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev- request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________________________________ ___ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco