- nothing else > - run the script with a normal heat engine > - the entire stack gets deployed in seconds > > Done! > > Well, that sounds like nova-docker. What about cinder and neutron? They > don't work well with Linux container! The answer is Hypernova > (https://github.com/hyperhq/hypernova) or Intel ClearContainer, seamless > integration with most OpenStack components. > > Summary: minimal changes to interface and upper systems, much smaller > image and much better developer workflow. > > Peng > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Hyper_ Secure Container Cloud > > > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 5:23 AM, Joshua Harlow harlowja@fastmail.com wrote: > > __ Fox, Kevin M wrote: > I think part of the problem is containers are mostly orthogonal to vms/bare metal. Containers are a package > for a single service. Multiple can run on a single vm/bare metal > host. Orchestration
Imagine a descriptor language like (which I stole from > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/210549 and modified): --- > components: - label: frontend count: 5 image: ubuntu_vanilla > requirements: high memory, low disk stateless: true - label: > database count: 3 image: ubuntu_vanilla requirements: high memory, > high disk stateless: false - label: memcache count: 3 image: > debian-squeeze requirements: high memory, no disk stateless: true - > label: zookeeper count: 3 image: debian-squeeze requirements: high > memory, medium disk stateless: false backend: VM networks: - label: > frontend_net flavor: “public network” associated_with: - frontend - > label: database_net flavor: high bandwidth associated_with: - > database - label: backend_net flavor: high bandwidth and low latency > associated_with: - zookeeper - memchache constraints: - ref: > container_only params: - frontend - ref: no_colocated params: - > database - frontend - ref: spread params: - database - ref: > no_colocated params: - database - frontend - ref: spread params: - > memcache - ref: spread params: - zookeeper - ref: isolated_network > params: - frontend_net - database_net - backend_net ... Now nothing > in the above is about container, or baremetal or vms, (although a > 'advanced' constraint can be
totally different code paths, OpenStack advanced services like Trove > could just use a Magnum COE and have a UI that asks which existing > Magnum COE to launch in, or alternately kick off the “Launch new > Magnum COE” workflow in horizon, then follow up with the Trove > launch workflow. Trove then would support being able to use > containers, users could potentially pack more containers onto their > vm's then just Trove, and it still would work with both Bare Metal > and VM's the same way since Magnum can launch on either. I'm afraid supporting both containers and non container deployment with Trove > will be a large effort with very little code sharing. It may be > easiest to have a flag version where non container deployments are > upgraded to containers then non container support is dropped. > Sure > trove seems like it would be a consumer of whatever interprets that > format, just like many other consumers could be (with the special > case that trove creates such a format on-behalf of some other > consumer, aka the trove user). > As for the app-catalog use case, > the app-catalog project (http://apps.openstack.org) is working on > some of that. > Thanks, > Kevin > > ________________________________________ > From: Joshua Harlow > [harlowja@fastmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:16 PM > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for > usage questions) > Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: > [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][tc][all] One Platform > – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting) > > Flavio > Percoco wrote: >> On 11/04/16 18:05 +0000, Amrith Kumar wrote: >>> > Adrian, thx for your detailed mail. >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, I was > hopeful of a silver bullet and as we’ve discussed before (I >>> >
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
Well, it is a myth that Docker is not linux container specific. It is born with cgroup/namespace, but the image is an app-centric way to package, nothing particular to linux container. For openstack, given the virtualization root, it is an easy win in places where requires strong isolation, multi-tenancy. And that creates new patterns to consume technologies. Peng ----------------------------------------------------- Hyper_ Secure Container Cloud On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 9:49 PM, Fox, Kevin M Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov wrote: It partially depends on if your following lightweight container methodology. Can nova api support unix sockets or bind mounts between containers in the same pod? Would it be reasonable to add that functionality? Its pretty different to novas usual use cases. Thanks, Kevin -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Peng Zhao Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 11:33:21 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Cc: foundation@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][tc][all] One Platform – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting) Agreed. IMO, OpenStack is an open framework to different technologies and use cases. Different architectures for different things make sense. Some may say that using nova to launch docker images with hypervisor is weird, but it can be seen as “Immutable IaaS”. ----------------------------------------------------- Hyper_ Secure Container Cloud On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 1:43 PM, Joshua Harlow harlowja@fastmail.com wrote: Sure, so that helps, except it still has the issue of bumping up against the mismatch of the API(s) of nova. This is why I'd rather have a template kind of format (as say the input API) that allows for (optionally) expressing such container specific capabilities/constraints. Then some project that can understand that template /format can if needed talk to a COE (or similar project) to translate that template 'segment' into a realized entity using the capabilities/constraints that the template specified. Overall it starts to feel like maybe it is time to change the upper and lower systems and shake things up a little ;) Peng Zhao wrote: > I'd take the idea further. Imagine a typical Heat template, what you > need to do is: > > - replace the VM id with Docker image id like Kubernetes comes in to turn a pool of > vm's/bare metal into a system that can easily run multiple > containers. > Is the orthogonal part a problem because we have made > it so or is it just how it really is? Brainstorming starts here: that a component must be on a > instead it's just about the constraints that a user has on there > deployment and the components associated with it. It can be left up > to some consuming project of that format to decide how to turn that > desired description into an actual description (aka a full expanding > of that format into an actual deployment plan), possibly say by > optimizing for density (packing as many things container) or > optimizing for security (by using VMs) or optimizing for performance > (by using bare-metal). > So, rather then concern itself with > supporting launching through a COE and through Nova, which are two 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 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 metal. > > Just some thoughts from me, but why > focus on the > compute/container/baremetal API at all? > > I'd > almost like a way that just describes how my app should be > > interconnected, what is required to get it going, and the features > > and/or scheduling requirements for different parts of those app. > > > To me it feels like this isn't a compute API or really a heat API > but > something else. Maybe it's closer to the docker compose > API/template > format or something like it. > > Perhaps such a thing > needs a new project. I'm not sure, but it does feel > like that as > developers we should be able to make such a thing that > still > exposes the more advanced functionality of the underlying API so > > that it can be used if really needed... > > Maybe this is similar to > an app-catalog, but that doesn't quite feel > like it's the right > thing either so maybe somewhere in between... > > IMHO I'd be nice > to have a unified story around what this thing is, so > that we as a > community can drive (as a single group) toward that, maybe > this is > where the product working group can help and we as a developer > > community can also try to unify behind... > > P.S. name for project > should be 'silver' related, ha. > > -Josh > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > 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 > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
