[openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r

Doug Hellmann doug at doughellmann.com
Tue Oct 18 18:10:15 UTC 2016


Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-10-18 12:00:35 -0600:
> 
> > On Oct 18, 2016, at 11:30 AM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Excerpts from Doug Wiegley's message of 2016-10-18 09:59:54 -0600:
> >> 
> >>> On Oct 18, 2016, at 5:14 AM, Ian Cordasco <sigmavirus24 at gmail.com <mailto:sigmavirus24 at gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org <mailto:thierry at openstack.org> <mailto:thierry at openstack.org <mailto:thierry at openstack.org>>>
> >>> Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>>
> >>> Date: October 18, 2016 at 03:55:41
> >>> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>>
> >>> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [requirements][lbaas] gunicorn to g-r
> >>> 
> >>>> Doug Wiegley wrote:
> >>>>> [...] Paths forward:
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 1. Add gunicorn to global requirements.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 2. Create a project specific “amphora-requirements.txt” file for the
> >>>>> service VM packages (this is actually my preference.) It has been
> >>>>> pointed out that this wouldn’t be kept up-to-date by the bot. We could
> >>>>> modify the bot to include it in some way, or do it manually, or with a
> >>>>> project specific job.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 3. Split our service VM builds into another repo, to keep a clean
> >>>>> separation between API services and the backend. But, even this new
> >>>>> repo’s standlone requirements.txt file will have the g-r issue from #1.
> >>>>> 
> >>>>> 4. Boot the backend out of OpenStack entirely.
> >>>> 
> >>>> All those options sound valid to me, so the requirements team should
> >>>> pick what they are the most comfortable with.
> >>>> 
> >>>> My 2c: yes g-r is mostly about runtime dependencies and ensuring
> >>>> co-installability. However it also includes test/build-time deps, and
> >>>> generally converging dependencies overall sounds like a valid goal. Is
> >>>> there any drawback in adding gunicorn to g-r (option 1) ?
> >>> 
> >>> The drawback (in my mind) is that new projects might start using it giving operators yet another thing to learn about when deploying a new component (eventlet, gevent, gunicorn, ...).
> >>> 
> >>> On the flip, what's the benefit of adding it to g-r?
> >> 
> >> The positive benefit is the same as Octavia’s use case: it provides an alternative for any non-frontline-api service to run a lightweight http/wsgi service as needed (service VMs, health monitor agents, etc). And something better than the built-in debug servers in most of the frameworks.
> >> 
> >> On the proliferation point, it is certainly a risk, though I’ve personally heard pretty strong guidance that all main API services in our community should be trending towards pecan.
> > 
> > Pecan is a way to build WSGI applications. Gunicorn is a way to deploy
> > them. So they're not mutually exclusive.
> 
> Right, agreed.
> 
> What we’re trying to convey here is:
> 
> - The normal way of making a REST endpoint in OpenStack is to use pecan (or flask or falcon), and let the deployer or packager worry about the runtime wsgi and/or reverse proxy.
> 
> - This isn't a “normal” OpenStack endpoint, because it’s a microservice inside a service VM, and thus has different needs, and is much less likely to be customized by a non-dev, to boot. And it needs to be “deploy ready” as a simple matter of it being a service VM black box. It’s part of the data plane, not the control plane.
> 
> Thanks,
> doug

That all seems reasonable.

We have a proliferation of these service VMs. It would be good to
get some of the folks involved together to start a working group
to see if there are some commonalities that can lead to shared
processes or tools.

Doug

> 
> > 
> > Doug
> > 
> >> 
> >> Thanks,
> >> doug
> >> 
> >>> 
> >>> --  
> >>> Ian Cordasco
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> __________________________________________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org> <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>>?subject:unsubscribe
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <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 <mailto:OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev>



More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list