Open Stack

Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 15/12/19 10:20 pm, Rong Zhu wrote:
>> 1.Add Ceilometer API back
>>      Since Gnocchi is out of OpenStack and is unmaintained, we need to 
>> add Ceilometer API back again.
> 
> This is concerning because even the people who wrote it don't consider 
> it adequate to the job. That inadequacy has been the source of 
> significant reputational damage to OpenStack in the past, and many folks 
> (me included) are anxious to avoid a repeat.

Yes this concerns me too, and even if we workaround the issue by adding 
Ceilo API back, I'd like to have a long-term plan to solve this issue. 
It seems there are several options on the table (including integrating 
Monasca and Ceilometer into a single stack, and other big-bang 
replacements) but it's never a one-for-one comparison as the solutions 
seem to address slightly disjoint problem spaces.

I'd like to hear from more Ceilometer users. What are they using 
Ceilometer for, and what long-term plans would be acceptable. There is a 
trade-off between adopting short-term workarounds that reintroduce 
performance issues vs. undergoing a complex migration to the "right" way 
of fixing this. Like for example there is little point in pushing 
Monasca/Ceilometer stack integration if most users say, like Catalyst 
Cloud seems to say, that they would rather have a slow performing 
Ceilometer API back.

> Telemetry is part of the TC "Approved Release" that is eligible for the 
> trademark program; I think at a minimum the TC will want to remove the 
> resurrected Ceilometer API from the "designated sections" that users are 
> required to run to participate in any trademark program that includes 
> the functionality in question. But I think that we should explore other 
> ways of reducing the chance of anyone confusing this for a viable way of 
> building a cloud, including possibly changing the name (Antediluvian 
> API?) and having this part of the stack live outside of the official 
> OpenStack project.

Legacy API?

-- 
Thierry Carrez (ttx)