Open Stack

On Aug 14, 2014, at 4:41 PM, Joe Gordon <joe.gordon0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Doug Hellmann <doug at doughellmann.com> wrote:
> 
> On Aug 13, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Eoghan Glynn <eglynn at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >>> At the end of the day, that's probably going to mean saying No to more
> >>> things. Everytime I turn around everyone wants the TC to say No to
> >>> things, just not to their particular thing. :) Which is human nature.
> >>> But I think if we don't start saying No to more things we're going to
> >>> end up with a pile of mud that no one is happy with.
> >>
> >> That we're being so abstract about all of this is frustrating. I get
> >> that no-one wants to start a flamewar, but can someone be concrete about
> >> what they feel we should say 'no' to but are likely to say 'yes' to?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'll bite, but please note this is a strawman.
> >>
> >> No:
> >> * Accepting any more projects into incubation until we are comfortable with
> >> the state of things again
> >> * Marconi
> >> * Ceilometer
> >
> > Well -1 to that, obviously, from me.
> >
> > Ceilometer is on track to fully execute on the gap analysis coverage
> > plan agreed with the TC at the outset of this cycle, and has an active
> > plan in progress to address architectural debt.
> 
> Yes, there seems to be an attitude among several people in the community that the Ceilometer team denies that there are issues and refuses to work on them. Neither of those things is the case from our perspective.
> 
> Totally agree.
>  
> 
> Can you be more specific about the shortcomings you see in the project that aren’t being addressed?
> 
> 
> Once again, this is just a straw man.

You’re not the first person to propose ceilometer as a project to kick out of the release, though, and so I would like to be talking about specific reasons rather than vague frustrations.

> 
> I'm just not sure OpenStack has 'blessed' the best solution out there.
> 
> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Ceilometer/Graduation#Why_we_think_we.27re_ready
> 
> "
> Successfully passed the challenge of being adopted by 3 related projects which have agreed to join or use ceilometer:
> Synaps
> Healthnmon
> StackTach"
> 
> Stacktach seems to still be under active development (http://git.openstack.org/cgit/stackforge/stacktach/log/), is used by rackspace in production and from everything I hear is more mature then ceilometer.

Stacktach is older than ceilometer, but does not do all of the things ceilometer does now and aims to do in the future. It has been a while since I last looked at it, so the situation may have changed, but some of the reasons stacktach would not be a full replacement for ceilometer include: it only works with AMQP; it collects notification events, but doesn’t offer any metering ability per se (no tracking of values like CPU or bandwidth utilization); it only collects notifications from some projects, and doesn’t have a way to collect data from swift, which doesn’t emit notifications; and it does not integrate with Heat to trigger autoscaling alarms.

We did work with a few of the Stacktach developers on bringing event collection into ceilometer, and that work is allowing us to modify the way we store the meter data that causes a lot of the performance issues we’ve seen. That work is going on now and will be continued into Kilo, when we expect to be adding drivers for time-series databases more appropriate for that type of data.

We’ve just finished the TC meeting where some of these issues were discussed, but I want to reiterate my stance here more publicly. As a community, we need to be able to talk about the technical shortcomings of projects. We need to be able to say, for example, “ceilometer, your runtime performance isn’t good enough, you need to work on that rather than adding features.” But we must also be willing give the team in question the benefit of the doubt that they will work on the problem before we bring out the pitchforks of de-integration, because there are serious community implications around that level of rejection.

Doug

>  
> 
> >
> >> Divert all cross project efforts from the following projects so we can focus
> >> our cross project resources. Once we are in a bitter place we can expand our
> >> cross project resources to cover these again. This doesn't mean removing
> >> anything.
> >> * Sahara
> >> * Trove
> >> * Tripleo
> >
> > You write as if cross-project efforts are both of fixed size and
> > amenable to centralized command & control.
> >
> > Neither of which is actually the case, IMO.
> >
> > Additional cross-project resources can be ponied up by the large
> > contributor companies, and existing cross-project resources are not
> > necessarily divertable on command.
> 
> Sure additional cross-project resources can and need to be ponied up, but I am doubtful that will be enough.
>  
> 
> What “cross-project efforts” are we talking about? The liaison program in Oslo has been a qualified success so far. Would it make sense to extend that to other programs and say that each project needs at least one designated QA, Infra, Doc, etc. contact?
> 
> Doug
> 
> >
> >> Yes:
> >> * All integrated projects that are not listed above
> >
> > And what of the other pending graduation request?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Eoghan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140814/ec57692b/attachment.html>