Open Stack

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 - 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 at 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 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: 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  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 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 at fastmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:16 PM   OpenStack
Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Cc:
foundation at 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 >>> 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 >> 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. > > 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 at 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 at 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 at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/foundation/attachments/20160413/213f80a0/attachment-0001.html>