[openstack-dev] [ptg] Simplification in OpenStack
alawson at aqorn.com
Tue Sep 26 05:44:12 UTC 2017
I think a GUI with a default config is a good start. Much would need to
happen to enable that of course but that's where my mind goes. Any talk
about 'default' kind of infringes on what we've all strived to embrace; a
cloud architecture without bakes in assumptions. A default-anything need
not mean other options are not available - only that a default gets them
started. I would never ever agree to a default that consists of
KVM+Contrail+NetApp. Something neutral would be great- easier said than
done of course.
Default configuration as I envision it != "Promoting a single solution". I
really hope a working default install would allow new users to get started
with OpeStack without *promoting* anything. OpenStack lacking a default
install results in an unfriendly deployment exercise. I know for a fact the
entire community at webhostingtalk.com ignores OS for the most part because
of how hard it is to deploy. They use Fuel or other third-party solutions
because we as a OS community continue to fail to acknowledge the importance
of an easier of implementation. Imagine thousands of hosting providers
deploying OpenStack because we made it easy. That is money in the bank
IMHO. I totally get the thinking about avoiding the term default for the
reasons you provided but giving users a starting point does not necessarily
mean we're trying to get them to adopt that as their final design. Giving
them a starting point must take precedence over not giving them any
"I'm not going to adopt something new that requires a new parallel management
tool to what I use." I would hope not! :) I don't mean having a tool means
the tool is *required*. Only that a user-friendly deployment tool is
*available*. Isn't that better than giving them nothing at all?
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:27 PM, Samuel Cassiba <s at cassiba.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 25, 2017, at 16:52, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:
> > Excerpts from Jonathan D. Proulx's message of 2017-09-25 11:18:51 -0400:
> >> On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 12:05:38AM -0700, Adam Lawson wrote:
> >> :Lastly, I do think GUI's make deployments easier and because of that, I
> >> :feel they're critical. There is more than one vendor whose built and
> >> :distributes a free GUI to ease OpenStack deployment and management.
> >> :a good start but those are the opinions of a specific vendor - not he
> >> :community. I have always been a big believer in a default cloud
> >> :configuration to ease the shock of having so many options for
> everything. I
> >> :have a feeling however our commercial community will struggle with
> >> :accepting any method/project other than their own as being part a
> >> :config. That will be a tough one to crack.
> >> Different people have differnt needs, so this is not meant to
> >> contradict Adam.
> >> But :)
> >> Any unique deployment tool would be of no value to me as OpenStack (or
> >> anyother infrastructure component) needs to fit into my environment.
> >> I'm not going to adopt something new that requires a new parallel
> >> management tool to what I use.
> > You already have that if you run OpenStack.
> > The majority of development testing and gate testing happens via
> > Devstack. A parallel management tool to what most people use to actually
> > operate OpenStack.
> >> I think focusing on the existing configuration management projects it
> >> the way to go. Getting Ansible/Puppet/Chef/etc.. to support a well
> >> know set of "constellations" in an opinionated would make deployment
> >> easy (for most people who are using one of those already) and ,
> >> ussuming the opionions are the same :) make consumption easier as
> >> well.
> >> As an example when I started using OpenStack (Essex) we had recently
> >> switch to Ubuntu as our Linux platform and Pupept as our config
> >> management. Ubuntu had a "one click MAAS install of OpenStack" which
> >> was impossible as it made all sorts of assumptions about our
> >> environment and wanted controll of most of them so it could provide a
> >> full deployemnt solution. Puppet had a good integrated example config
> >> where I plugged in some local choices and and used existing deploy
> >> methodologies.
> >> I fought with MAAS's "simple" install for a week. When I gave up and
> >> went with Puppet I had live users on a substantial (for the time)
> >> cloud in less htan 2 days.
> >> I don't think this has to do with the relative value of MASS and
> >> Puppet at the time, but rather what fit my existing deploy workflows.
> >> Supporting multiple config tools may not be simple from an upstream
> >> perspective, but we do already have these projects and it is simpler
> >> to consume for brown field deployers at least.
> > I don't think anybody is saying we would slam the door in the face of
> > people who use any one set of tools.
> > But rather, we'd start promoting and using a single solution for the bulk
> > of community efforts. Right now we do that with devstack as a reference
> > implementation that nobody should use for anything but dev/test. But
> > it would seem like a good idea for us to promote a tool for going live
> > as well.
> Except by that very statement, you slam the door in the face of tons of
> knowledge within organizations. This slope has a sheer face.
> Promoting a single solution would do as much harm as it would good, for
> all it’s
> worth. In such a scenario, the most advocated method would become the only
> understood method, in spite of all other deployment efforts. Each project
> did not have the most mindshare would become more irrelevant than they are
> and further slip into decay. For those that did not have the fortune or
> foresight to land on this hypothetical winning side, what for their
> evolve or gtfo?
> I'm not saying Fuel or Salt or Chef or Puppet or Ansible needs to be the
> 'winner', because there isn't a competition, at least in my opinion. The
> way I
> see it, we're all working to get to the same place. Our downstream
> don’t really care how that happens in the grand scheme, only that it does.
> > ____________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:
> > 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?subject:unsubscribe
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the OpenStack-dev