Open Stack

Hello, Russell,

> Personally, I see the globally distributed
> OpenStack under a single API case much more complex, and worth
> considering out of scope for the short to medium term, at least.

Thanks for your thougths. Do you mean it could be set in the roadmap, but not a scope in short or medium term ( for example, Kilo and L release )? Or we need more discussion to include it in the roadmap, then I would like to know how to do that.

Best Regards

Chaoyi Huang ( joehuang )
________________________________________
From: Russell Bryant [rbryant at redhat.com]
Sent: 12 December 2014 22:50
To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] [PTL] Cascading vs. Cells – summit recap and move forward

On 12/11/2014 12:55 PM, Andrew Laski wrote:
> Cells can handle a single API on top of globally distributed DCs.  I
> have spoken with a group that is doing exactly that.  But it requires
> that the API is a trusted part of the OpenStack deployments in those
> distributed DCs.

And the way the rest of the components fit into that scenario is far
from clear to me.  Do you consider this more of a "if you can make it
work, good for you", or something we should aim to be more generally
supported over time?  Personally, I see the globally distributed
OpenStack under a single API case much more complex, and worth
considering out of scope for the short to medium term, at least.

For me, this discussion boils down to ...

1) Do we consider these use cases in scope at all?

2) If we consider it in scope, is it enough of a priority to warrant a
cross-OpenStack push in the near term to work on it?

3) If yes to #2, how would we do it?  Cascading, or something built
around cells?

I haven't worried about #3 much, because I consider #2 or maybe even #1
to be a show stopper here.

--
Russell Bryant

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev