[openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of supporting single/multiple OS distro
Kai Qiang Wu
wkqwu at cn.ibm.com
Thu Mar 17 14:54:13 UTC 2016
HI Steve,
Some points to highlight here:
1> There are some work discussion about COE dynamic supports across
different OS distro.
2> For atomic, we did have many requirements before, it was an old story,
seem some not meet our needs (which once asked in atomic IRC channel or
community) So we built some images by ourselves. But if atomic community
could provide related support, it would more beneficial for both( as we use
it, it would be tested by us daily jenkins and developers)
Maybe for the requirements, need some clear channel, like:
1> What's the official channel to open requirements to Atomic community ?
Is it github or something else which can easily track ?
2> What's the normal process to deal with such requirements, and coordinate
ways.
3> Others....
Thanks
Best Wishes,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强 Kennan）
IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing
E-mail: wkqwu at cn.ibm.com
Tel: 86-10-82451647
Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park,
No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China
100193
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow your heart. You are miracle!
From: Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com>
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
Date: 17/03/2016 09:24 pm
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of supporting
single/multiple OS distro
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kai Qiang Wu" <wkqwu at cn.ibm.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:20:46 PM
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of supporting
single/multiple OS distro
>
> Hi Stdake,
>
> There is a patch about Atomic 23 support in Magnum. And atomic 23 uses
> kubernetes 1.0.6, and docker 1.9.1.
> From Steve Gordon, I learnt they did have a two-weekly release. To me it
> seems each atomic 23 release not much difference, (minor change)
> The major rebases/updates may still have to wait for e.g. Fedora Atomic
24.
Well, the emphasis here is on *may*. As was pointed out in that same thread
[1] rebases certainly can occur although those builds need to get karma in
the fedora build system to be pushed into updates and subsequently included
in the next rebuild (e.g. see [2] for a newer K8S build). The main point is
that if a rebase involves introducing some element of backwards
incompatibility then that would have to wait to the next major (F24) -
outside of that there is some flexibility.
> So maybe we not need to test every Atomic 23 two-weekly.
> Pick one or update old, when we find it is integrated with new kubernetes
> or docker, etcd etc. If other small changes(not include security), seems
> not need to update so frequently, it can save some efforts.
A question I have posed before and that I think will need to be answered if
Magnum is indeed to move towards the model for handling drivers proposed in
this thread is what are the expectations Magnum has for each image/coe
combination in terms of versions of key components for a given Magnum
release, and what are the expectations Magnum has for same when looking
forwards to say Newton.
Based on our discussion it seemed like there were some issues that mean
kubernetes-1.1.0 would be preferable for example (although that it wasn't
there was in fact itself a bug it would seem, but regardless it's a valid
example), but is that expectation documented somewhere? It seems like based
on feature roadmap it should be possible to at least put forward minimum
required versions for key components (e.g. docker, k8s, flanel, etcd for
the K8S COE)? This would make it easier to guide the relevant upstreams to
ensure their images support the Magnum team's needs and at least minimize
the need to do custom builds if not eliminate it.
-Steve
[1]
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ZJARDKSB3KGMKLACCZSQALZHV54PAJUB/
[2] https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-a89f5ce5f4
> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <stdake at cisco.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: 16/03/2016 03:23 am
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of supporting
> single/multiple OS distro
>
>
>
> WFM as long as we stick to the spirit of the proposal and don't end up in
a
> situation where there is only one distribution. Others in the thread had
> indicated there would be only one distribution in tree, which I'd find
> disturbing for reasons already described on this thread.
>
> While we are about it, we should move to the latest version of atomic and
> chase atomic every two weeks on their release. Thoughts?
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Monday, March 14, 2016 at 8:10 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of supporting
> single/multiple OS distro
>
>
>
> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:adrian.otto at rackspace.com]
> Sent: March-14-16 4:49 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of
supporting
> single/multiple OS distro
>
> Steve,
>
> I think you may have misunderstood our intent here. We are
not
> seeking to lock in to a single OS vendor. Each COE driver can
> have a different OS. We can have multiple drivers per COE.
The
> point is that drivers should be simple, and therefore should
> support one Bay node OS each. That would mean taking what we
> have today in our Kubernetes Bay type implementation and
> breaking it down into two drivers: one for CoreOS and another
> for Fedora/Atomic. New drivers would start out in a contrib
> directory where complete functional testing would not be
> required. In order to graduate one out of contrib and into
the
> realm of support of the Magnum dev team, it would need to
have
> a full set of tests, and someone actively maintaining it.
> OK. It sounds like the proposal allows more than one OS to be
> in-tree, as long as the second OS goes through an incubation
process.
> If that is what you mean, it sounds reasonable to me.
>
> Multi-personality driers would be relatively complex. That
> approach would slow down COE specific feature development,
and
> complicate maintenance that is needed as new versions of the
> dependency chain are bundled in (docker, k8s, etcd, etc.). We
> have all agreed that having integration points that allow for
> alternate OS selection is still our direction. This follows
the
> pattern that we set previously when deciding what networking
> options to support. We will have one that’s included as a
> default, and a way to plug in alternates.
>
> Here is what I expect to see when COE drivers are
implemented:
>
> Docker Swarm:
> Default driver Fedora/Atomic
> Alternate driver: TBD
>
> Kubernetes:
> Default driver Fedora/Atomic
> Alternate driver: CoreOS
>
> Apache Mesos/Marathon:
> Default driver: Ubuntu
> Alternate driver: TBD
>
> We can allow an arbitrary number of alternates. Those TBD
items
> can be initially added to the contrib directory, and with the
> right level of community support can be advanced to defaults
if
> shown to work better, be more straightforward to maintain, be
> more secure, or whatever criteria is important to us when
> presented with the choice. Such criteria will be subject to
> community consensus. This should allow for free
experimentation
> with alternates to allow for innovation. See how this is not
> locking in a single OS vendor?
>
> Adrian
>
> On Mar 14, 2016, at 12:41 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <
> stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
>
> Hongbin,
>
> When we are at a disagreement in the Kolla core team,
we
> have the Kolla core reviewers vote on the matter. This
is
> typical standard OpenStack best practice.
>
> I think the vote would be something like
> "Implement one OS/COE/network/storage prototype, or
> implement many."
>
> I don't have a horse in this race, but I think it would
> be seriously damaging to Magnum to lock in to a single
> vendor.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> From: Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:06 AM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of
> supporting single/multiple OS distro
>
>
>
> From: Corey O'Brien [
mailto:coreypobrien at gmail.com
> ]
> Sent: March-07-16 8:11 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for
> usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion
> of supporting single/multiple OS distro
>
> Hongbin, I think the offer to support different
OS
> options is a perfect example both of what we
want
> and what we don't want. We definitely want to
> allow for someone like yourself to maintain
> templates for whatever OS they want and to have
> that option be easily integrated in to a Magnum
> deployment. However, when developing features or
> bug fixes, we can't wait for you to have time to
> add it for whatever OS you are promising to
> maintain.
> It might be true that supporting additional OS could
> slow down the development speed, but the key question
is
> how much the impact will be. Does it outweigh the
> benefits? IMO, the impact doesn’t seem to be
> significant, given the fact that most features and bug
> fixes are OS agnostic. Also, keep in mind that every
> features we introduced (variety of COEs, variety of
Nova
> virt-driver, variety of network driver, variety of
> volume driver, variety of …) incurs a maintenance
> overhead. If you want an optimal development speed, we
> will be limited to support a single COE/virt
> driver/network driver/volume driver. I guess that is
not
> the direction we like to be?
>
> Instead, we would all be forced to develop the
> feature for that OS as well. If every member of
> the team had a special OS like that we'd all
have
> to maintain all of them.
> To be clear, I don’t have a special OS, I guess
neither
> do others who disagreed in this thread.
>
> Alternatively, what was agreed on by most at the
> midcycle was that if someone like yourself
wanted
> to support a specific OS option, we would have
an
> easy place for those contributions to go without
> impacting the rest of the team. The team as a
> whole would agree to develop all features for at
> least the reference OS.
> Could we re-confirm that this is a team agreement?
There
> is no harm to re-confirm it in the design
summit/ML/team
> meeting. Frankly, it doesn’t seem to be.
>
> Then individuals or companies who are passionate
> about an alternative OS can develop the features
> for that OS.
>
> Corey
>
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 12:30 AM Hongbin Lu <
> hongbin.lu at huawei.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: Adrian Otto [mailto:
> adrian.otto at rackspace.com]
> Sent: March-04-16 6:31 PM
>
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List
(not
> for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum]
> Discussion of supporting single/multiple
OS
> distro
>
> Steve,
>
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 2:41 PM, Steven
> Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
> From: Adrian Otto <
> adrian.otto at rackspace.com>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development
> Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Date: Friday, March 4, 2016 at 12:48
> PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing
> List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
[magnum]
> Discussion of supporting
> single/multiple OS distro
>
> Hongbin,
>
> To be clear, this pursuit is not
> about what OS options cloud
operators
> can select. We will be offering a
> method of choice. It has to do with
> what we plan to build comprehensive
> testing for,
> This is easy. Once we build comprehensive
> tests for the first OS, just re-run it
for
> other OS(s).
>
> and the implications that has on
our
> pace of feature development. My
> guidance here is that we resist the
> temptation to create a system with
> more permutations than we can
> possibly support. The relation
> between bay node OS, Heat Template,
> Heat Template parameters, COE, and
> COE dependencies (could-init,
docker,
> flannel, etcd, etc.) are
> multiplicative in nature. From the
> mid cycle, it was clear to me that:
>
> 1) We want to test at least one OS
> per COE from end-to-end with
> comprehensive functional tests.
> 2) We want to offer clear and
precise
> integration points to allow cloud
> operators to substitute their own
OS
> in place of whatever one is the
> default for the given COE.
>
> A COE shouldn’t have a default
> necessarily that locks out other
> defaults. Magnum devs are the
experts
> in how these systems operate, and as
> such need to take on the
> responsibility of the implementation
> for multi-os support.
>
> 3) We want to control the total
> number of configuration
permutations
> to simplify our efforts as a
project.
> We agreed that gate testing all
> possible permutations is
intractable.
>
> I disagree with this point, but I
> don't have the bandwidth available
to
> prove it ;)
>
> That’s exactly my point. It takes a chunk
of
> human bandwidth to carry that
> responsibility. If we had a system
engineer
> assigned from each of the various upstream
> OS distros working with Magnum, this would
> not be a big deal. Expecting our current
> contributors to support a variety of OS
> variants is not realistic.
> You have my promise to support an additional OS
> for 1 or 2 popular COEs.
>
> Change velocity among all the components
we
> rely on has been very high. We see some of
> our best contributors frequently
sidetracked
> in the details of the distros releasing
> versions of code that won’t work with
ours.
> We want to upgrade a component to add a
new
> feature, but struggle to because the new
> release of the distro that offers that
> component is otherwise incompatible.
> Multiply this by more distros, and we
expect
> a real problem.
> At Magnum upstream, the overhead doesn’t seem to
> come from the OS. Perhaps, that is specific to
> your downstream?
>
> There is no harm if you have 30 gates
> running the various combinations.
> Infrastructure can handle the load.
Whether
> devs have the cycles to make a fully
> bulletproof gate is the question I think
you
> answered with the word intractable.
>
> Actually, our existing gate tests are
really
> stressing out our CI infra. At least one
of
> the new infrastructure providers that
> replaced HP have equipment that runs
> considerably slower. For example, our swam
> functional gate now frequently fails
because
> it can’t finish before the allowed time
> limit of 2 hours where it could finish
> substantially faster before. If we
expanded
> the workload considerably, we might
quickly
> work to the detriment of other projects by
> perpetually clogging the CI pipelines. We
> want to be a good citizen of the openstack
> CI community. Testing configuration of
third
> party software should be done with third
> party CI setups. That’s one of the reasons
> those exist. Ideally, each would be
> maintained by those who have a strategic
> (commercial?) interest in support for that
> particular OS.
>
> I can tell you in Kolla we spend a
lot
> of cycles just getting basic gating
> going of building containers and
then
> deploying them. We have even made
> inroads into testing the deployment.
> We do CentOS, Ubuntu, and soon
Oracle
> Linux, for both source and binary
and
> build and deploy. Lots of gates and
> if they aren't green we know the
patch
> is wrong.
>
> Remember that COE’s are tested on nova
> instances within heat stacks. Starting
lots
> of nova instances within devstack in the
> gates is problematic. We are looking into
> using a libvirt-lxc instance type from
nova
> instead of a libvirt-kvm instance to help
> alleviate this. Until then, limiting the
> scope of our gate tests is appropriate. We
> will continue our efforts to make them
> reasonably efficient.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adrian
>
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> Note that it will take a thoughtful
> approach (subject to discussion) to
> balance these interests. Please
take
> a moment to review the interest
> above. Do you or others disagree
with
> these? If so, why?
>
> Adrian
>
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 9:09 AM,
> Hongbin Lu <
> hongbin.lu at huawei.com> wrote:
>
> I don’t think there is any
> consensus on supporting
single
> distro. There are multiple
> disagreements on this thread,
> including several senior team
> members and a project
> co-founder. This topic should
> be re-discussed (possibly at
> the design summit).
>
> Best regards,
> Hongbin
>
> From: Corey O'Brien [
> mailto:coreypobrien at gmail.com
]
> Sent: March-04-16 11:37 AM
> To: OpenStack Development
> Mailing List (not for usage
> questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev]
> [magnum] Discussion of
> supporting single/multiple OS
> distro
>
> I don't think anyone is
saying
> that code should somehow
block
> support for multiple distros.
> The discussion at midcycle
was
> about what the we should gate
> on and ensure feature parity
> for as a team. Ideally, we'd
> like to get support for every
> distro, I think, but no one
> wants to have that many
gates.
> Instead, the consensus at the
> midcycle was to have 1
> reference distro for each
COE,
> gate on those and develop
> features there, and then have
> any other distros be
maintained
> by those in the community
that
> are passionate about them.
>
> The issue also isn't about
how
> difficult or not it is. The
> problem we want to avoid is
> spending precious time
> guaranteeing that new
features
> and bug fixes make it through
> multiple distros.
>
> Corey
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:18
AM
> Steven Dake (stdake) <
> stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
> My position on this is
simple.
>
> Operators are used to using
> specific distros because
that
> is what they used in the
> 90s,and the 00s, and the
10s.
> Yes, 25 years of using a
> distro, and you learn it
> inside and out. This means
> you don't want to relearn a
> new distro, especially if
your
> an RPM user going to DEB or
a
> DEB user going to RPM.
These
> are non-starter options for
> operators, and as a result,
> mean that distro choice is a
> must. Since CoreOS is a new
> OS in the marketplace, it
may
> make sense to consider
placing
> it in "third" position in
> terms of support.
>
> Besides that problem,
various
> distribution companies will
> only support distros running
> in Vms if it matches the
host
> kernel, which makes total
> sense to me. This means on
an
> Ubuntu host if I want
support
> I need to run Ubuntu vms, on
a
> RHEL host I want to run RHEL
> vms, because, hey, I want my
> issues supported.
>
> For these reasons and these
> reasons alone, there is no
> good rationale to remove
> multi-distro support from
> Magnum. All I've heard in
> this thread so far is "its
too
> hard". Its not too hard,
> especially with Heat
> conditionals making their
way
> into Mitaka.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
> From: Hongbin Lu <
> hongbin.lu at huawei.com>
> Reply-To: "
>
openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> " <
>
openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >
> Date: Monday, February 29,
> 2016 at 9:40 AM
> To: "
>
openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> " <
>
openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >
> Subject: [openstack-dev]
> [magnum] Discussion of> supporting single/multiple
OS
> distro
>
> Hi team,
>
> This is a continued
discussion
> from a review [1]. Corey
> O'Brien suggested to have
> Magnum support a single OS
> distro (Atomic). I
disagreed.
> I think we should bring the
> discussion to here to get
> broader set of inputs.
>
> Corey O'Brien
> From the midcycle, we
decided
> we weren't going to continue
> to support 2 different
> versions of the k8s
template.
> Instead, we were going to
> maintain the Fedora Atomic
> version of k8s and remove
the
> coreos templates from the
> tree. I don't think we
should
> continue to develop features
> for coreos k8s if that is
> true.
> In addition, I don't think
we
> should break the coreos
> template by adding the trust
> token as a heat parameter.
>
> Hongbin Lu
> I was on the midcycle and I
> don't remember any decision
to
> remove CoreOS support. Why
you
> want to remove CoreOS
> templates from the tree.
> Please note that this is a
> very big decision and please
> discuss it with the team
> thoughtfully and make sure
> everyone agree.
>
> Corey O'Brien
> Removing the coreos
templates
> was a part of the COE
drivers
> decision. Since each COE
> driver will only support 1
> distro+version+coe we
> discussed which ones to
> support in tree. The
decision
> was that instead of trying
to
> support every distro and
every
> version for every coe, the
> magnum tree would only have
> support for 1 version of 1
> distro for each of the 3
COEs
> (swarm/docker/mesos). Since
we
> already are going to support
> Atomic for swarm, removing
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
--
Steve Gordon,
Principal Product Manager,
Red Hat OpenStack Platform
__________________________________________________________________________
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/openstack-dev/attachments/20160317/35997c90/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: graycol.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160317/35997c90/attachment-0001.gif>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list
