[openstack-dev] Next steps for Whole Host allocation / Pclouds
jaypipes at gmail.com
Thu Jan 23 17:34:46 UTC 2014
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 17:05 +0000, Day, Phil wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jay Pipes [mailto:jaypipes at gmail.com]
> > Sent: 22 January 2014 02:01
> > To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] Next steps for Whole Host allocation / Pclouds
> > On Tue, 2014-01-21 at 14:21 +0000, Khanh-Toan Tran wrote:
> > > > Exactly - that's why I wanted to start this debate about the way
> > > > forward for the Pcloud Blueprint, which was heading into some kind
> > > > of middle ground. As per my original post, and it sounds like the
> > > > three of us are at least aligned I'm proposing to spilt this into
> > > > two streams:
> > > >
> > > > i) A new BP that introduces the equivalent of AWS dedicated instances.
> > >
> > > Why do you want to transform pCloud into AWS dedicated instances? As I
> > > see it, pCloud is for requesting physical hosts (HostFlovors as in
> > > pcloud wiki) on which users can create their own instances
> > > (theoretically in unlimited number).
> > > Therefore it should be charged per physical server (HostFlavor), not
> > > by instances. It is completely different from AWS dedicated instances
> > > which is charged per instance. IMO, pcloud resembles Godrid Dedicated
> > > Server, not AWS Dedicated Instance.
> > It resembles managed/dedicated hosting. Not cloud.
> I think there is a cross-over point here somewhere - call it "managed cloud" where the user doesn't want to run a cloud but does want (and is willing to pay for) some guarantee of isolation of hypervisors, but also wants to share other aspects of the cloud (images, volumes, VPC networks).
The above is perfectly fine. It is the "isolated instance use case".
That is still cloud, IMO. It's still using shared resources owned and
controlled by the operator (just sharing is limited to a certain subset
of tenants). It's also still entirely on-demand and fits into the normal
flow of actions that any other request for resources uses.
> They get a degree of controlled Admin (can set up their own flavors for example) - but they are still only doing configuration type tasks, not operating the system as such - and probably most significantly they can build systems that are a combination of instances running on shared and dedicated servers. That's kind of where pCLouds was evolving to - and I think you can build such a beast more effectively by running multiple dedicated Nova's configured to take to a shared Glance/Cinder/Neutron. I.e this belongs on-Nova, not in-Nova
And here is where I lose you :)
The above isn't really cloud, IMO. It is describing managed dedicated
hosting, including all of the legacy high-touch, "enterprise
IT"-centric, high-cost, "let me do that backup for you" business and
I understand there are lots of sales and product organizations
clamouring for such things... because it allows those organizations to
be lazy and rely on the same sales practices and marketing techniques
that have allowed them to trap IT organizations into a single-provider
model for years.
I'm just not all that interested in furthering those use cases ;)
And yes, I realize I sound like a spoiled, opinionated hipster coder
sitting in a San Francisco coffee shop pontificating about a utopia free
of enterprise IT providers.
/me dons skinny jeans and a grows a late 19th-century moustache.
More information about the OpenStack-dev