Open Stack

True.  But baremetal is not currently defined as core, either.  So, the real discussion here is let's wait and see what a little maturity of the Docker and Baremetal projects bring before we worry about the impacts on Refstack and Defcore.

--RockyG

From: Bhandaru, Malini K [mailto:malini.k.bhandaru at intel.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 5:09 PM
To: Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com; Auld, Will; aclark at suse.com; Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Seeking DefCore Feedback from Summit (you can just +1 if you think community supports DefCore)

Would just like to point out .. assigning a machine to a single tenant - with Docker, would not be very different from assigning bare metal to a tenant who does not want the overhead of virtualization and that is an use case we would like to support in the cloud too.
Regards
Malini

From: Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com [mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 5:02 PM
To: Auld, Will; aclark at suse.com; Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Seeking DefCore Feedback from Summit (you can just +1 if you think community supports DefCore)

Will,

I want to make sure I understand.  You agree that the issue does not change DefCore approach?   We're going to wait and see what happens with Docker.

From: Auld, Will [mailto:will.auld at intel.com]
Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 11:19 AM
To: Hirschfeld, Rob; aclark at suse.com<mailto:aclark at suse.com>; Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
Cc: Auld, Will
Subject: RE: [OpenStack-DefCore] Seeking DefCore Feedback from Summit (you can just +1 if you think community supports DefCore)

The issue here is as much paradigm as much as function. Docker with OpenStack is kinda like a PaaS and kinda like a IaaS. We would like to be able to deliver it in the cloud as an option alongside our various hypervisors as well as bare metal.  Delivered on a Nova compute host means the host should be restricted to a single tenant which is unusual. Docker is just a different beast for our environment and will need to evolve before it could be a part of core.

Thanks,

Will

From: Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com<mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com> [mailto:Rob_Hirschfeld at Dell.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:52 PM
To: aclark at suse.com<mailto:aclark at suse.com>; Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org<mailto:Defcore-committee at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [OpenStack-DefCore] Seeking DefCore Feedback from Summit (you can just +1 if you think community supports DefCore)


> > 2. Nova Docker is an interesting use case because Docker does not use
> > Glance or Cinder in the same way as libvirt Nova does. This means
> > that a Docker cloud would not pass the core tests for Glance or
> > Cinder as currently structured.
>
>
> ok a naive question on my part. Is this a question for the first
> release or something to address for Juno? I ask the question because
> I'm not sure what the stated Docker support was for Havana and Icehouse.
>

I don't think we have to make changes in response, but it does raise questions that we should consider.

If someone wanted a "Docker Only" OpenStack then there would be compatibly issues with Glance and Cinder because they don't work the same way for Docker as other approaches.  We could fake the responses to pass the tests but that would cause other issues.  At some point, we may have to resolve if Nova+Docker is a new type of IaaS and thus a different set of capabilities.  There's no simple answer.

Since our goal is interop, I suspect there's little room for APIs that behave in different ways.   Consequently, the Docker question is an excellent test of DefCore.

I hope that helps.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/defcore-committee/attachments/20140524/5acc215f/attachment.html>