Open Stack

On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Krishna Raman <kraman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Sam Alba <sam.alba at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I wish we can make a decision during this meeting. Is it confirmed for
>> Friday 9am pacific?
>
>
> Friday 9am Pacific seems to be the best time for this meeting. Can we use
> the #openstack-meeting channel for this?
> If not, then I can find another channel.
>
> For the agenda, I propose
>  - going through https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service-api and
> understand capabilities of all container technologies
>      + would like the experts on each of those technologies to fill us in
>  - go over the API proposal and see what we need to change.

I think it's too early to go through the API. Let's first go through
all options discussed before to support containers in openstack
compute:
#1 Have this new compute service for containers (other than Nova)
#2 Extend Nova virt API to support containers
#3 Support containers API as a third API for Nova

Depending how it goes, then it makes sense to do an overview of the API I think.

What do you guys think?


>> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Chuck Short <chuck.short at canonical.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > Has a decision happened when this meeting is going to take place,
>> > assuming
>> > it is still taking place tomorrow.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > chuck
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Krishna Raman <kraman at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Russell Bryant <rbryant at redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 11/18/2013 06:30 PM, Dan Smith wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody
>> >> give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate
>> >> service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is,
>> >> after all, just another hypervisor type, or so it seems.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> But it's not just another hypervisor. If all you want from your
>> >> containers is lightweight VMs, then nova is a reasonable place to put
>> >> that (and it's there right now). If, however, you want to expose the
>> >> complex and flexible attributes of a container, such as being able to
>> >> overlap filesystems, have fine-grained control over what is shared with
>> >> the host OS, look at the processes within a container, etc, then nova
>> >> ends up needing quite a bit of change to support that.
>> >>
>> >> I think the overwhelming majority of folks in the room, after
>> >> discussing
>> >> it, agreed that Nova is infrastructure and containers is more of a
>> >> platform thing. Making it a separate service lets us define a mechanism
>> >> to manage these that makes much more sense than treating them like VMs.
>> >> Using Nova to deploy VMs that run this service is the right approach,
>> >> IMHO. Clayton put it very well, I think:
>> >>
>> >>  If the thing you want to deploy has a kernel, then you need Nova. If
>> >>  your thing runs on a kernel, you want $new_service_name.
>> >>
>> >> I agree.
>> >>
>> >> Note that this is just another service under the compute project (or
>> >> program, or whatever the correct terminology is this week).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The Compute program is correct.  That is established terminology as
>> >> defined by the TC in the last cycle.
>> >>
>> >> So while
>> >> distinct from Nova in terms of code, development should be tightly
>> >> integrated until (and if at some point) it doesn't make sense.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> And it may share a whole bunch of the code.
>> >>
>> >> Another way to put this:  The API requirements people have for
>> >> containers include a number of features considered outside of the
>> >> current scope of Nova (short version: Nova's scope stops before going
>> >> *inside* the servers it creates, except file injection, which we plan
>> >> to
>> >> remove anyway).  That presents a problem.  A new service is one
>> >> possible
>> >> solution.
>> >>
>> >> My view of the outcome of the session was not "it *will* be a new
>> >> service".  Instead, it was, "we *think* it should be a new service, but
>> >> let's do some more investigation to decide for sure".
>> >>
>> >> The action item from the session was to go off and come up with a
>> >> proposal for what a new service would look like.  In particular, we
>> >> needed a proposal for what the API would look like.  With that in hand,
>> >> we need to come back and ask the question again of whether a new
>> >> service
>> >> is the right answer.
>> >>
>> >> I see 3 possible solutions here:
>> >>
>> >> 1) Expand the scope of Nova to include all of the things people want to
>> >> be able to do with containers.
>> >>
>> >> This is my least favorite option.  Nova is already really big.  We've
>> >> worked to split things out (Networking, Block Storage, Images) to keep
>> >> it under control.  I don't think a significant increase in scope is a
>> >> smart move for Nova's future.
>> >>
>> >> 2) Declare containers as explicitly out of scope and start a new
>> >> project
>> >> with its own API.
>> >>
>> >> That is what is being proposed here.
>> >>
>> >> 3) Some middle ground that is a variation of #2.  Consider Ironic.  The
>> >> idea is that Nova's API will still be used for basic provisioning,
>> >> which
>> >> Nova will implement by talking to Ironic.  However, there are a lot of
>> >> baremetal management things that don't fit in Nova at all, and those
>> >> only exist in Ironic's API.
>> >>
>> >> I wanted to mention this option for completeness, but I don't actually
>> >> think it's the right choice here.  With Ironic you have a physical
>> >> resource (managed by Ironic), and then instances of an image running on
>> >> these physical resources (managed by Nova).
>> >>
>> >> With containers, there's a similar line.  You have instances of
>> >> containers (managed either by Nova or the new service) running on
>> >> servers (managed by Nova).  I think there is a good line for separating
>> >> concerns, with a container service on top of Nova.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Let's ask ourselves:  How much overlap is there between the current
>> >> compute API and a proposed containers API?  Effectively, what's the
>> >> diff?  How much do we expect this diff to change in the coming years?
>> >>
>> >> The current diff demonstrates a significant clash with the current
>> >> scope
>> >> of Nova.  I also expect a lot of innovation around containers in the
>> >> next few years, which will result in wanting to do new cool things in
>> >> the API.  I feel that all of this justifies a new API service to best
>> >> position ourselves for the long term.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >> We need to come up with the API first before we decide if this is a new
>> >> service or just something that
>> >> needs to be added to Nova,
>> >>
>> >> How about we have all interested parties meet on IRC or conf. call and
>> >> discuss the suggested REST API,
>> >> open questions and architecture.
>> >>
>> >> If you are interested please add your name to the participant list on
>> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service.
>> >>
>> >> I have also set up a doodle poll at http://doodle.com/w7y5qcdvq9i36757
>> >> to
>> >> gather a times when a majority
>> >> of us are available to discuss on IRC.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Krishna Raman
>> >>
>> >> PS: Sorry if you see this email twice. I am having some issues with
>> >> list
>> >> subscription.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Russell Bryant
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> @sam_alba
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
@sam_alba