<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Stephen,<br>
I have responded to your questions below.<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 04/17/2014 01:02 PM, Stephen Balukoff wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Howdy folks!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Based on this morning's IRC meeting, it seems to me there's
some contention and confusion over the need for "single call"
functionality for load balanced services in the new API being
discussed. This is what I understand:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* Those advocating "single call" are arguing that this
simplifies the API for users, and that it more closely
reflects the users' experience with other load balancing
products. They don't want to see this functionality
necessarily delegated to an orchestration layer (Heat),
because coordinating how this works across two OpenStack
projects is unlikely to see success (ie. it's hard enough
making progress with just one project). I get the impression
that people advocating for this feel that their current users
would not likely make the leap to Neutron LBaaS unless some
kind of functionality or workflow is preserved that is no more
complicated than what they currently have to do.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#ff0000">Another reason, which I've mentioned many
times before and keeps getting ignored, is because the more
primitives you add the longer it will take to provision a load
balancer. Even if we relied on the orchestration layer to build
out all the primitives, it still will take much more time to
provision a load balancer than a single create call provided by
the API. Each request and response has an inherent time to
process. Many primitives will also have an inherent build time.
Combine this in an environment that becomes more and more dense,
build times will become very unfriendly to end users whether they
are using the API directly, going through a UI, or going through
an orchestration layer. This industry is always trying to improve
build/provisioning times and there are no reasons why we shouldn't
try to achieve the same goal.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>* Those (mostly) against the idea are interested in seeing
the API provide primitives and delegating "higher level"
single-call stuff to Heat or some other orchestration layer.
There was also the implication that if "single-call" is
supported, it ought to support both simple and advanced
set-ups in that single call. Further, I sense concern that if
there are multiple ways to accomplish the same thing supported
in the API, this redundancy breeds complication as more
features are added, and in developing test coverage. And
existing Neutron APIs tend to expose only primitives. I get
the impression that people against the idea could be convinced
if more compelling reasons were illustrated for supporting
single-call, perhaps other than "we don't want to change the
way it's done in our environment right now."</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#ff0000">I completely disagree with "we dont want to
change the way it's done in our environment right now". Our
proposal has changed the way our current API works right now. We
do not have the notion of primitives in our current API and our
proposal included the ability to construct a load balancer with
primitives individually. We kept that in so that those operators
and users who do like constructing a load balancer that way can
continue doing so. What we are asking for is to keep our users
happy when we do deploy this in a production environment and
maintain a single create load balancer API call.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've mostly stayed out of this debate because our solution
as used by our customers presently isn't "single-call" and I
don't really understand the requirements around this.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So! I would love it if some of you could fill me in on
this, especially since I'm working on a revision of the
proposed API. Specifically, what I'm looking for is answers to
the following questions:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. Could you please explain what you understand single-call
API functionality to be?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000">Single-call API functionality is a call that
supports adding multiple features to an entity (load balancer in
this case) in one API request. Whether this supports all features
of a load balancer or a subset is up for debate. I prefer all
features to be supported. Yes it adds complexity, but complexity
is always introduced by improving the end user experience and I
hope a good user experience is a goal.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. Could you describe the simplest use case that uses
single-call API in your environment right now? Please be very
specific-- ideally, a couple examples of specific CLI
commands a user might run, or API (along with specific
configuration data) would be great.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://docs.rackspace.com/loadbalancers/api/v1.0/clb-devguide/content/Create_Load_Balancer-d1e1635.html">http://docs.rackspace.com/loadbalancers/api/v1.0/clb-devguide/content/Create_Load_Balancer-d1e1635.html</a><br>
<br>
This page has many different ways to configure a load balancer
with one call. It ranges from a simple load balancer to a load
balancer with a much more complicated configuration. Generally,
if any of those features are allowed on a load balancer then it is
supported through the single call. </font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. Could you describe the most complicated use case that
your single-call API supports? Again, please be very specific
here.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000">Same data can be derived from the link above.</font><br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. What percentage of your customer base are used to using
single-call functionality, and what percentage are used to
manipulating primitives?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font color="#cc0000">100% but just like others it is the only way
to create a load balancer in our API. So this data doesn't mean
much.</font><br>
<br>
Oh! One other question:
<div><br>
</div>
<div> 5. Should "single-call" stuff work for the lifecycle of a
load balancing service? That is to say, should "delete"
functionality also clean up all primitives associated with the
service?<br>
<br>
<font color="#ff0000">How we were thinking was that it would just
"detach" the primitives from the load balancer but keep them
available for association with another load balancer. A user
would only be able to actually delete a primitive if it went
through the root primitive resource (i.e. /pools, /vips).
However, this is definitely up for debate and there are pros and
cons to doing it both ways. If the system completely deletes
the primitives on the deletion of the load balancer, then the
system has to handle when one of those primitives is being
shared with another load balancer.</font><br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAAGw+Zqccw5--mOmymPm6XqO120PwOfyRPJrWtRORY0XnVmXqg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>Stephen</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<span></span>Stephen Balukoff
<br>
Blue Box Group, LLC
<br>
(800)613-4305 x807
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org">OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev">http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>