Open Stack

How do you like alternate design: uses can chose any image he wants (say
any Linux) but the JSON that is in image tag has enough information on what
applications are installed on that image. And not just installed or not but
the exact state installation was frozen (say binaries are deployed but
config files are need to be modified). The deployment workflow can peak
that state from image tag and continue right from the place it was stopped
last time. So if user has chosen image with MySQL preinstalled the workflow
will just post-configure it while if the user chosen clean Linux image it
will do the whole deployment from scratch. Thus it will become only a
matter of optimization and user will still be able to to share instance for
several applications (good example is Firewall app) or deploy his app even
if there is no image where it was built in.

Those are only my thoughts and this need a proper design. For now I agree
that we need to improve tagging to support yours use case. But this need to
be done in a way that would allow both user and machine to work with. UI at
least needs to distinguish between Linux and Windows while for user a
free-form tagging may be appropriate. Both can be stored in a single JSON
tag.

So lets create blueprint/etherpad for this and both think on exact format
that can be implemented right now

Sincerely yours,
Stan Lagun
Principal Software Engineer @ Mirantis

 <slagun at mirantis.com>


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:08 PM, McLellan, Steven <steve.mclellan at hp.com>
wrote:

>  Thanks for the response.
>
>
>
> Primarily I’m thinking about a situation where I have an image that has a
> specific piece of software installed (let’s say MySQL for the sake of
> argument). My application (which configures mysql) requires a glance image
> that has MySQL pre-installed, and doesn’t particularly care what OS (though
> again for the sake of argument assume it’s linux of some kind, so that
> configuration files are expected to be in the same place regardless of OS).
>
>
>
> Currently we have a list of three hardcoded values in the UI, and none of
> them apply properly. I’m suggesting instead of that list, we allow
> free-form text; if you’re tagging glance images, you are expected to know
> what applications will be looking for. This still leaves a problem in that
> I can upload a package but I don’t necessarily have the ability to mark any
> images as valid for it, but I think that can be a later evolution; for now,
> I’m focusing on the situation where an admin is both uploading glance
> images and murano packages.
>
>
>
> As a slight side note, we do have the ability to filter image sizes based
> on glance properties (RAM, cpus), but this is in the UI code, not enforced
> at the contractual level. I agree reengineering some of this to be at the
> contract level is a good goal, but it seems like that would involve major
> reengineering of the dashboard to make it much dumber and go through the
> murano API for everything (which ultimately is probably a good thing).
>
>
>
> *From:* Stan Lagun [mailto:slagun at mirantis.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 20, 2014 5:42 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Murano] Image tagging
>
>
>
> Hi!
>
>
>
> I think it would be usefull to share the original vision on tagging that
> we had back in 0.4 era when it was introduced.
>
> Tagging was supposed to be JSON image metadata with extendable scheme.
> Workflow should be able to both utilize that metadata and impose some
> constraints on it. That feature was never really designed so I cannot tell
> exactly how this JSON should work or look like. As far as I see it it can
> contain:
>
>
>
> 1. Operating system information. For example "os": { "family": "Linux",
> "name": "Ubuntu", "version": "12.04", "arch": "x86_x64" } (this also may be
> encoded as a single string)
>
>     Workflows (MuranoPL contracts) need to be able to express requirements
> based on those attributes. For example
>
>
>
>     image:
>
>       Contract($.class(Image).check($.family = Linux and $.arch = x86)
>
>
>
>    In UI only those images that matches such contract should be displayed.
>
>
>
> 2. Human readable image title "Ubuntu Linux 12.04 x86"
>
>
>
> 3. Information about built-in software for image-based deployment. Not
> sure exactly what information is needed. Meybe even portion of Object Model
> so that if such image is used Murano environment will automatically
> recocnize and incorporate that application like it was added by user to be
> installed on clean instance. This will allow using of pre-build images with
> preinstalled software (e.g. speed up deployment) but will make it
> transparent for the user so that this software could be managed as well as
> applications that user choses to install
>
>
>
> 4. Minimal hardware requirement for the image. Murano could use that
> information to guarantee that user will not select flavor that is too small
> for that operating system.
>
>
>
> 5. General-purposed tags
>
>
>
> We need to think how this concept fits into our roadmap and new Glance
> design (probably there are other projects that can benefit from extended
> image metadata) before chosing one of your approaches
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   Sincerely yours,
> Stan Lagun
> Principal Software Engineer @ Mirantis
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 6:46 PM, McLellan, Steven <steve.mclellan at hp.com>
> wrote:
>
>  Hi,
>
>
>
> Images that can be used for package deployment have to be tagged in glance
> in order to enable the UI to filter the list of images to present to a user
> (and potentially preselect). Currently the tags are defined in the
> dashboard code (images/forms.py) which makes things very inflexible; if I
> can upload an image and a package that consumes that image, I don’t want to
> have to make a code change to use it.
>
>
>
> Anyone who can upload images should also be able to specify tags for them.
> There is also the question of whether a user should be allowed to tag
> images that don’t belong to them (e.g. a shared image used by a private
> package), but I think that can be punted down the road somewhat.
>
>
>
> I think this needs to be more dynamic, and if that’s agreed upon, there
> are a couple of approaches:
>
> 1)      Store allowed tags in the database, and allow administrators to
> add to that list. Ordinary users would likely not be able to create tags,
> though they could use pre-defined ones for images they owned.
>
> 2)      Have some public tags, but also allow user-specified tags for
> private packages. I think this leads to all sorts of tricky edge cases
>
> 3)      Allow freeform tags (i.e. don’t provide any hints). Since there’s
> no formal link between the tag that a package looks for and the tags
> currently defined in code, this wouldn’t make anything more susceptible to
> inaccuracies
>
>
>
> It would also be worth considering if there’s value allowing multiple tags
> per image (I’m on the fence).
>
>
>
> Personally, I think that 1) would be an improvement over the current
> situation that’s reasonably easy to implement; that would allow the bare
> minimum of flexibility without requiring much extra design. The other
> options would perhaps be a longer term goal.
>
>
>
> Thoughts? If there’s general agreement I will turn this into a blueprint.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140723/d6f5f8c7/attachment.html>