Open Stack

We look forward to your proposal and I hope that does get us closer (if 
not all the way to) an agreed upon revision.  Also, thank you for taking 
the time to fully understand our thought processes on some of the 
features we want and decisions we made in the proposal.

Thanks,
Brandon

On 04/17/2014 09:01 PM, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
> Hi Brandon,
>
> Yep! I agree that both those definitions are correct: It all depends 
> on context.
>
> I'm usually OK with going with whatever definition is in popular use 
> by the user-base. However, "load balancer" as a term is so ambiguous 
> among people actually developing a cloud load balancing system that a 
> definition or more specific term is probably called for. :)
>
> In any case, all I'm really looking for is a glossary of defined terms 
> attached to the API proposal, especially for terms like this that can 
> have several meanings depending on context.  (That is to say, I don't 
> think it's necessary to define "IP address" for example--  unless, 
> say, the distinction between IPv4 or IPv6 becomes important to the 
> conversation somehow.)
>
> In any case note that I actually like your API thus far and think it's 
> a pretty good start: Y'all put forth the laudable effort to actually 
> create it, there's obviously a lot of forethought put into your 
> proposal, and that certainly deserves respect! In fact, my team and I 
> will probably be building off of what you've started in creating our 
> proposal (which, again, I hope to have in a "showable" state before 
> next week's meeting, and which I'm anticipating won't be the final 
> form this API revision takes anyway.)
>
> Thanks,
> Stephen
>
> "There are only two truly difficult problems in computer science: 
> Naming things, cache invalidation, and off-by-one errors."
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 6:31 PM, Brandon Logan 
> <brandon.logan at rackspace.com <mailto:brandon.logan at rackspace.com>> wrote:
>
>     Stephen,
>     Thanks for elaborating on this.  I agreed and still do that our
>     proposal's load balancer falls more in line with that glossary's
>     term for "listener" and now can see the discrepancy with "load
>     balancer".  Yes, in this case the term "load balancer" would have
>     to be redefined, but that doesn't mean it is the wrong thing to do.
>
>     I've always been on the side of the Load Balancing as a Service
>     API using a root object called a "load balancer". This just really
>     makes sense to me and others, but obviously it doesn't for
>     everyone.  However, in our experience end users just understand
>     the service better when the service takes in load balancer objects
>     and returns load balancer objects.
>
>     Also, since it has been tasked to defined a new API we felt that
>     it was implied that some definitions were going to change,
>     especially those that are subjective.  There are definitely many
>     definitions of a load balancer.  Is a load balancer an appliance
>     (virtual or physical) that load balances many protocols and ports
>     and is it also one that load balances a single protocol on a
>     single port?  I would say that is definitely subjective. 
>     Obviously I, and others, feel that both of those are true.  I
>     would like to hear arguments as to why one of them is not true,
>     though.
>
>     Either way, we could have named that object a "sqonkey" and given
>     a definition in that glossary.  Now we can all agree that while
>     that word is just an amazing word, its a terrible name to use in
>     any context for this service.  It seems to me that an API can
>     define and also redefine subjective terms.
>
>     I'm glad you don't find this as a deal breaker and are okay with
>     redefining the term.  I hope we all can come to agreement on an
>     API and I hope it satisfies everyone's needs and ideas of a good API.
>
>     Thanks,
>     Brandon
>
>
>     On 04/17/2014 07:03 PM, Stephen Balukoff wrote:
>>     Hi Brandon!
>>
>>     Per the meeting this morning, I seem to recall you were looking
>>     to have me elaborate on why the term 'load balancer' as used in
>>     your API proposal is significantly different from the term 'load
>>     balancer' as used in the glossary at:
>>     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/Glossary
>>
>>     As promised, here's my elaboration on that:
>>
>>     The glossary above states:  "An object that represent a logical
>>     load balancer that may have multiple resources such as Vips,
>>     Pools, Members, etc.Loadbalancer is a root object in the meaning
>>     described above." and references the diagram here:
>>     https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/LoadbalancerInstance/Discussion#Loadbalancer_instance_solution
>>
>>     On that diagram, it's clear that VIPs, & etc. are subordinate
>>     objects to a load balancer. What's more, attributes like
>>     'protocol' and 'port' are not part of the load balancer object in
>>     that diagram (they're part of a 'VIP' in one proposed version,
>>     and part of a 'Listener' in the others).
>>
>>     In your proposal, you state "only one port and one protocol per
>>     load balancer," and then later (on page 9 under "GET /vips") you
>>     show that a vip may have many load balancers associated with it.
>>     So clearly, "load balancer" the way you're using it is
>>     subordinate to a VIP. So in the glossary, it sounds like the
>>     object which has a single port and protocol associated with it
>>     that is subordinate to a VIP: A listener.
>>
>>     Now, I don't really care if y'all decide to re-define "load
>>     balancer" from what is in the glossary so long as you do define
>>     it clearly in the proposal. (If we go with your proposal, it
>>     would then make sense to update the glossary accordingly.)
>>     Mostly, I'm just trying to avoid confusion because it's exactly
>>     these kinds of misunderstandings which have stymied discussion
>>     and progress in the past, eh.
>>
>>     Also-- I can guess where the confusion comes from: I'm guessing
>>     most customers refer to "a service which listens on a tcp or udp
>>     port, understands a specific protocol, and forwards data from the
>>     connecting client to some back-end server which actually services
>>     the request" as a "load balancer." It's entirely possible that in
>>     the glossary and in previous discussions we've been mis-using the
>>     term (like we have with VIP). Personally, I suspect it's an
>>     overloaded term that in use in our industry means different
>>     things depending on context (and is probably often mis-used by
>>     people who don't understand what load balancing actually is).
>>     Again, I care less about what specific terms we decide on so long
>>     as we define them so that everyone can be on the same page and
>>     know what we're talking about. :)
>>
>>     Stephen
>>
>>
>>
>>     On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:17 PM, Brandon Logan
>>     <brandon.logan at rackspace.com
>>     <mailto:brandon.logan at rackspace.com>> wrote:
>>
>>>         You say 'only one port and protocol per load balancer', yet
>>>         I don't know how this works. Could you define what a 'load
>>>         balancer' is in this case?  (port and protocol are
>>>         attributes that I would associate with a TCP or UDP listener
>>>         of some kind.)  Are you using 'load balancer' to mean
>>>         'listener' in this case (contrary to previous discussion of
>>>         this on this list and the one defined here
>>>         https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/Glossary#Loadbalancer
>>>         <https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron/LBaaS/Glossary#Loadbalancer>
>>>         )?
>>
>>         Yes, it could be considered as a Listener according to that
>>         documentation.  The way to have a "listener" using the same
>>         VIP but listen on two different ports is something we call
>>         VIP sharing.  You would assign a VIP to one load balancer
>>         that uses one port, and then assign that same VIP to another
>>         load balancer but that load balancer is using a different
>>         port than the first one.  How the backend implements it is an
>>         implementation detail (redudant, I know).  In the case of
>>         HaProxy it would just add the second port to the same config
>>         that the first load balancer was using.  In other drivers it
>>         might be different.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Stephen Balukoff
>>     Blue Box Group, LLC
>>     (800)613-4305 x807 <tel:%28800%29613-4305%20x807>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>     OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org  <mailto: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
>     <mailto:OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
>     http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Stephen Balukoff
> Blue Box Group, LLC
> (800)613-4305 x807
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140417/1228c055/attachment.html>