Open Stack

I wish we can make a decision during this meeting. Is it confirmed for
Friday 9am pacific?

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Chuck Short <chuck.short at canonical.com> wrote:
> Hi
>
> Has a decision happened when this meeting is going to take place, assuming
> it is still taking place tomorrow.
>
> Regards
> chuck
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Krishna Raman <kraman at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/18/2013 06:30 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>>
>> Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody
>> give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate
>> service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is,
>> after all, just another hypervisor type, or so it seems.
>>
>>
>> But it's not just another hypervisor. If all you want from your
>> containers is lightweight VMs, then nova is a reasonable place to put
>> that (and it's there right now). If, however, you want to expose the
>> complex and flexible attributes of a container, such as being able to
>> overlap filesystems, have fine-grained control over what is shared with
>> the host OS, look at the processes within a container, etc, then nova
>> ends up needing quite a bit of change to support that.
>>
>> I think the overwhelming majority of folks in the room, after discussing
>> it, agreed that Nova is infrastructure and containers is more of a
>> platform thing. Making it a separate service lets us define a mechanism
>> to manage these that makes much more sense than treating them like VMs.
>> Using Nova to deploy VMs that run this service is the right approach,
>> IMHO. Clayton put it very well, I think:
>>
>>  If the thing you want to deploy has a kernel, then you need Nova. If
>>  your thing runs on a kernel, you want $new_service_name.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Note that this is just another service under the compute project (or
>> program, or whatever the correct terminology is this week).
>>
>>
>> The Compute program is correct.  That is established terminology as
>> defined by the TC in the last cycle.
>>
>> So while
>> distinct from Nova in terms of code, development should be tightly
>> integrated until (and if at some point) it doesn't make sense.
>>
>>
>> And it may share a whole bunch of the code.
>>
>> Another way to put this:  The API requirements people have for
>> containers include a number of features considered outside of the
>> current scope of Nova (short version: Nova's scope stops before going
>> *inside* the servers it creates, except file injection, which we plan to
>> remove anyway).  That presents a problem.  A new service is one possible
>> solution.
>>
>> My view of the outcome of the session was not "it *will* be a new
>> service".  Instead, it was, "we *think* it should be a new service, but
>> let's do some more investigation to decide for sure".
>>
>> The action item from the session was to go off and come up with a
>> proposal for what a new service would look like.  In particular, we
>> needed a proposal for what the API would look like.  With that in hand,
>> we need to come back and ask the question again of whether a new service
>> is the right answer.
>>
>> I see 3 possible solutions here:
>>
>> 1) Expand the scope of Nova to include all of the things people want to
>> be able to do with containers.
>>
>> This is my least favorite option.  Nova is already really big.  We've
>> worked to split things out (Networking, Block Storage, Images) to keep
>> it under control.  I don't think a significant increase in scope is a
>> smart move for Nova's future.
>>
>> 2) Declare containers as explicitly out of scope and start a new project
>> with its own API.
>>
>> That is what is being proposed here.
>>
>> 3) Some middle ground that is a variation of #2.  Consider Ironic.  The
>> idea is that Nova's API will still be used for basic provisioning, which
>> Nova will implement by talking to Ironic.  However, there are a lot of
>> baremetal management things that don't fit in Nova at all, and those
>> only exist in Ironic's API.
>>
>> I wanted to mention this option for completeness, but I don't actually
>> think it's the right choice here.  With Ironic you have a physical
>> resource (managed by Ironic), and then instances of an image running on
>> these physical resources (managed by Nova).
>>
>> With containers, there's a similar line.  You have instances of
>> containers (managed either by Nova or the new service) running on
>> servers (managed by Nova).  I think there is a good line for separating
>> concerns, with a container service on top of Nova.
>>
>>
>> Let's ask ourselves:  How much overlap is there between the current
>> compute API and a proposed containers API?  Effectively, what's the
>> diff?  How much do we expect this diff to change in the coming years?
>>
>> The current diff demonstrates a significant clash with the current scope
>> of Nova.  I also expect a lot of innovation around containers in the
>> next few years, which will result in wanting to do new cool things in
>> the API.  I feel that all of this justifies a new API service to best
>> position ourselves for the long term.
>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>> We need to come up with the API first before we decide if this is a new
>> service or just something that
>> needs to be added to Nova,
>>
>> How about we have all interested parties meet on IRC or conf. call and
>> discuss the suggested REST API,
>> open questions and architecture.
>>
>> If you are interested please add your name to the participant list on
>> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service.
>>
>> I have also set up a doodle poll at http://doodle.com/w7y5qcdvq9i36757 to
>> gather a times when a majority
>> of us are available to discuss on IRC.
>>
>> --
>> Krishna Raman
>>
>> PS: Sorry if you see this email twice. I am having some issues with list
>> subscription.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Russell Bryant
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
@sam_alba