Open Stack

That's what I needed to know, thanks :)

Michael

On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:11 PM Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:

> Another parallel is Manilla vs Swift. Both provides something like a share
> for users to store files.
>
> The former is a multitenant api to provision non multitenant file shares.
> The latter is a multitenant api to provide file sharing.
>
> Cue is a multitenant api to provision non multitenant queues.
> Zaqar is an api for a multitenant queueing system.
>
> They are complimentary services.
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Ryan Brown [rybrown at redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:38 AM
> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Call for adoption (or exclusion?)
>
> On 04/20/2015 02:22 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote:
> > What's the difference between openstack/zaqar and stackforge/cue?
> > Looking at the projects, it seems like zaqar is a ground-up
> > implementation of a queueing system, while cue is a provisioning api for
> > queuing systems that could include zaqar, but could also include rabbit,
> > zmq, etc...
> >
> > If my understanding of the projects is correct, the latter is far more
> > versatile, and more in line with similar openstack approaches like
> > trove. Is there a use case nuance I'm not aware of that warrants
> > duplicating efforts? Because if not, one of the two should be retired
> > and development focused on the other.
> >
> > Note: I do not have a horse in this race. I just feel it's strange that
> > we're building a thing that can be provisioned by the other thing.
> >
>
> Well, with Trove you can provision databases, but the MagnetoDB project
> still provides functionality that trove won't.
>
>
> The Trove : MagnetoDB and Cue : Zaqar comparison fits well.
>
> Trove provisions one instance of X (some database) per tenant, where
> MagnetoDB is one "instance" (collection of hosts to do database things)
> that serves many tenants.
>
> Cue's goal is "I have a not-very-multitenant message bus (rabbit, or
> whatever)" and makes that multitenant by provisioning one per tenant,
> while Zaqar has a single install (of as many machines as needed) to
> support messaging for all cloud tenants. This enables great stuff like
> cross-tenant messaging, better physical resource utilization in
> sparse-tenant cases, etc.
>
> As someone who wants to adopt Zaqar, I'd really like to see it continue
> as a project because it provides things other message broker approaches
> don't.
>
> --
> Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> 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/20150420/690a2e52/attachment.html>