Open Stack

On 04/08/15 23:39 -0700, Mike Perez wrote:
>On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Morgan Fainberg
><morgan.fainberg at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Gorka Eguileor <geguileo at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 05:47:44AM +1000, Morgan Fainberg wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Aug 4, 2015, at 01:42, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > I'm usually for abstraction layers, but they don't always pay off very
>>> > > well due to catering to the lowest common denominator.
>>> > >
>>> > > Lets clearly define the problem space first. IFF the problem space can
>>> > > be fully implemented using Tooz, then lets do that. Then the operator can
>>> > > choose. If Tooz cant and wont handle the problem space, then we're trying to
>>> > > fit a square peg in a round hole.
>>> >
>>> > +1 and specifically around tooz, it is narrow in comparison to the
>>> > feature sets of some the DLMs (since it has to mostly-implement to the
>>> > lowest common denominator, as abstraction layers do). Defining the space we
>>> > are trying to target will let us make the informed decision on what we use.
>>>
>>> Again with this?
>>
>> Yes, I was reiterating that we should not talk about a specific choice but
>> continue with the other discussion. Tooz, ZooKeeper, Consul, etc, is all
>> irrelevant to the rest of the conversation we are having. The specific
>> technology used can be discussed in an x-project spec, but I really would
>> rather see a very opinionated choice. That can again be delayed until a
>> later point.
>>
>>> We already what we want to get out of Tooz, where we want it and for how
>>> long we'll be using it in each of those places.
>>
>> My response was also before the rest of the convo that occurred post
>> Flavio's summary.
>>
>>> To answer those questions all that's needed is to read this thread and
>>> the links referred on some conversations.
>>
>> I am fine with using a DLM. I see a significant benefit (without putting too
>> fine a point on it, Keystone *will* benefit from a choice for a DLM to be
>> available in OpenStack, and I like the idea). I was hoping to continue (and
>> we did) identify where we had DLM-like/DLM uses in OpenStack so we knew
>> where to focus.
>
>Hey all,
>
>This thread is a mess.
>
>I'm going to put together facts with what projects are doing and why.
>I will present my findings at the session that I will be moderating in
>the cross project track of the summit [1], if accepted. Spec may
>follow.
>
>[1] - https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cross-project-session-planning

FWIW, there are 2 threads now. This one that you just replied to is
supposed to be related to Cinder and not to the cross-project
discussion. It's a mess, I agree! :(

That said, you may want to sync with Joshua since he's going to work
on a cross-project spec as well (as he mentioned in the other
thread).[0]

Thanks for taking the time,
Flavio

[0] http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-August/071400.html

>
>--
>Mike Perez
>
>__________________________________________________________________________
>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

-- 
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150805/1f26733f/attachment.pgp>