<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I can volounteer to spend time on Ceilomter and Gnocchi while I
have some mimimal knowledge on Ceilomter<br>
and pretty much none on the Gnocchi codebase I would like to see the
project continued.<br>
<br>
Another thing would be if Gnocchi should be moved back or if I
should somehow get in contact with the former<br>
Gnocchi maintainers and see if we can get access to GitHub?<br>
<br>
Best regards<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/19/19 2:46 AM, Rong Zhu wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAN2nDNtemzZ3KksMXy1yyMWQt=Rk+cYzDS3QhNZA-YqDhRbgaw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>
<div dir="auto">I just want to know any other guys from the
thread want to as volunteers to take over gnocchi?</div>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">About Monasca, we discuss a lot in Shanghai, if
users already use monasca, as Lingxian mentioned ceilometer has
already support publish to monasca. but I think most of the user
didn't use monasca, as a community you can just say use monasca,
but for company want to use in production, add a component and
the depends extra tools would be very very difficult, this will
need many many resources to do the things. </div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Tobias Urdin <<a
href="mailto:tobias.urdin@binero.se"
moz-do-not-send="true">tobias.urdin@binero.se</a>>于2019年12月18日
周三18:00写道：<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<a
href="https://github.com/gnocchixyz/gnocchi/issues/1049#issuecomment-555768072"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://github.com/gnocchixyz/gnocchi/issues/1049#issuecomment-555768072</a><br>
<br>
On 12/18/19 10:15 AM, Tobias Urdin wrote:<br>
> As an operator I second pretty much everything Samsaid,
using<br>
> ceilometer-api never really worked without hand holding
all the time.<br>
> We migrated over to Gnocchi as that was "the way
forward" from the<br>
> Telemetry team and it has worked great.<br>
><br>
> Gnocchi has a learning curve but after that it has been
running<br>
> flawlessly even at a larger scale, just introduced more
workers and<br>
> everything is set.<br>
><br>
> I think the long term plan from the Telemetry team was
to move out any<br>
> storage abstraction and cultivate ceilometer to a
single focus area around<br>
> collecting metrics. Moving any API, transformations,
storage etc to<br>
> another service.<br>
><br>
> I think it's said to see Gnocchi, the actual solutions
to the problem,<br>
> being unmaintained and out of the OpenStack developer
ecosystem. I<br>
> assume there<br>
> is a cost to bringing it back in after it was moved out
but maybe it's<br>
> something that is needed?<br>
><br>
> While I don't have a deep understand in Gnocchi I would
have no choice<br>
> but to try to spend more time learning it and fixing
any issues that we<br>
> might<br>
> see since at this point we can't live without it, as
our billing<br>
> providers supports the Gnocchi API, we using Heat with
Gnocchi and Aodh<br>
> to autoscale etc.<br>
><br>
> As a final note; thanks for bringing back the cpu_util
metric, means I<br>
> can drop the ugly customized code that was required to
bring that metric<br>
> back while<br>
> it was removed :)<br>
><br>
> Best regards<br>
> Tobias<br>
><br>
> On 12/18/19 5:39 AM, Sam Morrison wrote:<br>
>>> On 17 Dec 2019, at 10:14 pm, Thierry Carrez
<<a href="mailto:thierry@openstack.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">thierry@openstack.org</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Zane Bitter wrote:<br>
>>>> On 15/12/19 10:20 pm, Rong Zhu wrote:<br>
>>>>> 1.Add Ceilometer API back<br>
>>>>> Since Gnocchi is out of
OpenStack and is unmaintained, we need to add Ceilometer API
back again.<br>
>>>> 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.<br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>> Nectar Cloud has been a ceilometer user from the
early days. Well we tried to be and couldn’t use it as
ceilometer api and mongo db just didn’t work at our scale.
Gnocchi solved all these issues for us and we use
ceilometer/aodh/gnocchi happily in production for several
years now.<br>
>> If telemetry project is going down the path of the
old days it will mean we will either drop ceilometer all
together and look at alternative solutions like monasca or
Prometheus etc. I just can’t see how the old architecture of
ceilometer is ever going to be usable.<br>
>><br>
>> If there is some confidence that gnocchi publisher
will be supported in the future we would keep using gnocchi
and just maintain it ourselves. It’s an open source project
and I was hoping the openstack community could keep it
going. We’d be happy to help maintain it at least.<br>
>><br>
>> We use ceilometer/gnocchi to collect and store all
metrics from openstack services. We have also written some
custom pollsters and gnocchi is quite flexible here to allow
this. With these metrics we build reports for our users, our
operators, our funders (the government)<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Please reconsider your direction much like adding
cpu_util back in (thank you for this!)<br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>> Sam<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>>> 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.<br>
>>> Legacy API?<br>
>>><br>
>>> -- <br>
>>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)<br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Thanks,<br>
Rong Zhu</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>