Open Stack

Hi Jorge!

+1 to everything you just said. In fact, I think you said essentially what
I was trying to last week with 100% less drama.

I'll work to add workflows to my proposal, but please note it's late on a
Wednesday and tomorrow's IRC meeting is awfully early in my time zone. I
probably won't have workflow documentation done in time.

Thanks,
Stephen



On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:26 PM, Jorge Miramontes <
jorge.miramontes at rackspace.com> wrote:

> Oops! Everywhere I said Samuel I meant Stephen. Sorry you both have SB as
> you initials so I got confused. :)
>
> Cheers,
> --Jorge
>
>
>
>
> On 4/30/14 5:17 PM, "Jorge Miramontes" <jorge.miramontes at RACKSPACE.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >Hey everyone,
> >
> >I agree that we need to be preparing for the summit. Using Google docs
> >mixed with Openstack wiki works for me right now. I need to become more
> >familiar the gerrit process and I agree with Samuel that it is not
> >conducive to "large" design discussions. That being said I'd like to add
> >my thoughts on how I think we can most effectively get stuff done.
> >
> >As everyone knows there are many new players from across the industry that
> >have an interest in Neutron LBaaS. Companies I currently see
> >involved/interested are Mirantis, Blue Box Group, HP, PNNL, Citrix,
> >eBay/Paypal and Rackspace. We also have individuals involved as well. I
> >echo Kyle's sentiment on the passion everyone is bringing to the project!
> >Coming into this project a few months ago I saw that a few things needed
> >to be done. Most notably, I realized that gathering everyone's
> >expectations on what they wanted Neutron LBaaS to be was going to be
> >crucial. Hence, I created the requirements document. Written requirements
> >are important within a single organization. They are even more important
> >when multiple organizations are working together because everyone is
> >spread out across the world and every organization has a different
> >development process. Again, my goal with the requirements document is to
> >make sure that everyone's voice in the community is taken into
> >consideration. The benefit I've seen from this document is that we ask
> >"Why?" to each other, iterate on the document and in the end have a clear
> >understanding of everyone's motives. We also learn from each other by
> >doing this which is one of the great benefits of open source.
> >
> >Now that we have a set of requirements the next question to ask is, "How
> >doe we prioritize requirements so that we can start designing and
> >implementing them"? If this project were a completely new piece of
> >software I would argue that we iterate on individual features based on
> >anecdotal information. In essence I would argue an agile approach.
> >However, most of the companies involved have been operating LBaaS for a
> >while now. Rackspace, for example, has been operating LBaaS for the better
> >part of 4 years. We have a clear understanding of what features our
> >customers want and how to operate at scale. I believe other operators of
> >LBaaS have the same understanding of their customers and their operational
> >needs. I guess my main point is that, collectively, we have data to back
> >up which requirements we should be working on. That doesn't mean we
> >preclude requirements based on anecdotal information (i.e. "Our customers
> >are saying they want new shiny feature X"). At the end of the day I want
> >to prioritize the community's requirements based on factual data and
> >anecdotal information.
> >
> >Assuming requirements are prioritized (which as of today we have a pretty
> >good idea of these priorities) the next step is to design before laying
> >down any actual code. I agree with Samuel that pushing the cart before the
> >horse is a bad idea in this case (and it usually is the case in software
> >development), especially since we have a pretty clear idea on what we need
> >to be designing for. I understand that the current code base has been
> >worked on by many individuals and the work done thus far is the reason why
> >so many new faces are getting involved. However, we now have a completely
> >updated set of requirements that the community has put together and trying
> >to fit the requirements to existing code may or may not work. In my
> >experience, I would argue that 99% of the time duct-taping existing code
> >to fit in new requirements results in buggy software. That being said, I
> >usually don't like to rebuild a project from scratch. If I can I try to
> >refactor as much as possible first. However, in this case we have a
> >particular set of requirements that changes the game. Particularly,
> >operator requirements have not been given the attention they deserve.
> >
> >I think of Openstack as being cloud software that is meant to operate at
> >scale and have the necessary operator tools to do so. Otherwise, why do we
> >have so many companies interested in Openstack if you can't operate a
> >cloud that scales? In the case of LBaaS, user/feature requirements and
> >operator requirements are not necessarily mutually exclusive. How you
> >design the system in regards to one set of requirements affects the design
> >of the system in regards to the other set of requirements. SSL
> >termination, for example, affects the ability to scale since it is CPU
> >intensive. As an operator, I need to know how to provision load balancer
> >instances efficiently so that I'm not having to order new hardware more
> >than I have to. With this in mind, I am assuming that most of us are
> >vendor-agnostic and want to cooperate in developing an open source driver
> >while letting vendors create their own drivers. If this is not the case
> >then perhaps a lot of the debates we have been having are moot since we
> >can separate efforts depending on what driver we want to work on. The only
> >item of Neutron LBaaS that we need to have consensus on then is the API
> >(web app, database, messaging system, etc.). Keep in mind that the API
> >implies what feature/user requirements are satisfied, but no so much for
> >operator requirements. I think this is one reason why we have been working
> >on API proposals. Samuel, thank you for the time you spent on your
> >proposal as we know how much time and effort it takes.
> >
> >Because several of us have been spending large amounts of time on API
> >proposals, and because we can safely assume that most operational
> >requirements are abstracted into the driver layer I say we continue the
> >conversation around the different proposals since this is the area we
> >definitely need consensus on. So far there are three proposals--Stephen's,
> >Rackspace's and Eugene's. To date, we honestly haven't had an actual
> >discussion on the pros and cons of each proposal. To give structure to
> >this we here at Rackspace have been going to great lengths to make sure we
> >have enough tangible documentation in order to clearly convey our
> >thoughts. We also went to great lengths to satisfy the user/feature
> >requirements in our API. Here is what we have done:
> >
> >- An API specification located here ==>
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mTfkkdnPAd4tWOMZAdwHEx7IuFZDULjG9bTmWy
> >X
> >e-zo/edit
> >- Single API call workflows & multiple API call workflows of each of the
> >use cases (#1 through #9 for now) from
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ewl95yxAMq2fO0Z6Dz6fL-w2FScERQXQR1-mXu
> >S
> >INis/edit#heading=h.48fieovwttzg. Our workflows are located here ==>
> >https://drive.google.com/#folders/0B2r4apUP7uPwRVc2MzQ2MHNpcE0
> >- A lightweight proof of concept that is in the works so that people that
> >need to actually send requests to an API to believe in it can do so. We
> >will send an update in a few days when this POC is complete.
> >
> >In order to fairly compare proposals I think it would be nice if each
> >proposal give workflows on how their API will operate. This is isn't
> >necessary but I think it will definitely give structure in any discussions
> >we have when comparing. If others have thoughts on how to compare the
> >proposals on equal footing then by all means speak up.
> >
> >Once we come to a consensus on the API then we can figure out how to make
> >iterative changes in order to get the API to the consensus state. That is
> >a separate conversation in my mind. First we need to agree on a spec
> >without the confines of looking at current implementation.
> >
> >
> >Cheers,
> >--Jorge
> >
> >
> >P.S. Sorry for the delay in responding to the ML. Just reading them takes
> >several hours.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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
>



-- 
Stephen Balukoff
Blue Box Group, LLC
(800)613-4305 x807
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20140430/c3ae1d24/attachment.html>