[OpenStack Foundation] [openstack-dev] [board][tc][all] One Platform – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting)

Russell Bryant rbryant at redhat.com
Mon Apr 11 16:25:40 UTC 2016

On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

> On 04/11/2016 09:43 AM, Allison Randal wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Davanum Srinivas <davanum at 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 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.

I was there and agree with the summary provided by Allison and Monty.

It's important to have some high level alignment on where we see our core
strengths and where we see ourselves as complementary and not competitive.
I don't think any of it was new information, but valuable to revisit

Russell Bryant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20160411/3d5060b5/attachment.html>

More information about the Foundation mailing list