Open Stack

Hi Dmitry,

I also don't think that we should duplicate the data in configdb,
because in this case there will be +2 additional interfaces which
will require to covert the data into configdb and after that from
configdb to Solar, which seems redundant overhead.

But we should be able to put the data directly to user's
CMDB/ZooKeeper/Puppet Master/etc.

Thanks,

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 2:03 AM, Dmitriy Shulyak <dshulyak at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hello folks,
>
> This topic is about configuration storage which will connect data sources
> (nailgun/bareon/others) and orchestration. And right now we are developing
> two projects that will overlap a bit.
>
> I understand there is not enough context to dive into this thread right
> away, but i will appreciate if those people, who participated in design,
> will add their opinions/clarifications on this matter.
>
> Main disagreements
> ---------------------------
> 1. configdb should be passive, writing to configdb is someone else
> responsibility
> + simpler implementation, easier to use
> - we will need another component that will do writing, or split this
> responsibility somehow
>
> 2. can be used without other solar components
> + clear inteface between solar components and storage layer
> - additional work required to design/refactor communication layer between
> modules in solar
> - some data will be duplicated between solar orchestrator layer and
> configdb
>
> 3. templates for output
> technical detail, can be added on top of solardb if required
>
> Similar functionality
> --------------------------
> 1. Hierachical storage
> 2. Versioning of changes
> 3. Possibility to overwrite config values
> 4. Schema for inputs
>
> Overall it seems that we share same goals for both services,
> the difference lies in organizational and technical implementation details.
>
> Possible solutions
> ------------------------
> 1. develop configdb and solar with duplicated functionality
> - at least 2 additional components will be added to the picture,
> one is configdb, another one will need to sync data between configdb and
> solar
> - in some cases data in solar and configdb will be 100% duplicated
> - different teams will work on same functionality
> - integration of additional component for fuel will require integration
> with
> configdb and with solar
> + configdb will be independent from solar orchestration/other components
>
> 2. make service out of solardb, allign with configdb use cases
> + solardb will be independent from solar orchestration/other solar
> components
> + integration of fuel component will be easier than in 1st version
> + clarity about components responsibility and new architecture
> - redesign/refactoring communication between components in solar
>
> 3. do not use configdb/no extraction of solardb
> - inproc communication, which can lead to coupled components (not the case
> currently)
> + faster implementation (no major changes required for integration with
> fuel)
> + clarity about components responsibility and new architecture
>
> Summary
> -------------
> For solar it makes no difference where data will come from: configdb or
> data sources, but in overall fuel architecture it will lead to significant
> complexity increase.
> It would be the best to follow 2nd path, because in long term we don't
> want tightly coupled components, but in nearest future we need to
> concentrate
> on:
> - integration with fuel
> - implementing policy engine
> - polishing solar components
> This is why i am not sure that we can spend time on 2nd path right now,
> or even before 9.0.
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20151216/2428191a/attachment.html>