Open Stack

That would work, but would be a per tenant thing? So if you had lots of tenants using the same image, it would redownloaded lots of times. Are there any plans for glance integration so the cloud deployer could cache it in the image catalog? I seem to remember a version of docker that could use glance directly?

Thanks,
Kevin

________________________________
From: Adrian Otto
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 5:31:11 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum][app-catalog] [ Supporting swift downloads for operator languagepacks

Kevin,

Magnum has a plan for dealing with that. Solum will likely have a Magnum integration that will leverage it:

https://blueprints.launchpad.net/magnum/+spec/registryv2-in-master

With that said, yes, you could also optimize the performance of the upstream by caching it locally in swift. You’d want an async proceed to keep it continually updated though.

Adrian

> On Jun 17, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>
> so, to not beat up on the public facing server, the user would have to copy the container from the public server to the cloud's swift stoage, then the docker hosts could pull from there?
>
> Thanks,
> Kevin
> ________________________________________
> From: Adrian Otto [adrian.otto at rackspace.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 4:21 PM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum][app-catalog] [ Supporting swift downloads for operator languagepacks
>
> Kevin,
>
>> On Jun 17, 2015, at 4:03 PM, Fox, Kevin M <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>> Would then each docker host try and redownload the the prebuilt container externally? If you build from source, does it build it once and then all the docker hosts use that one local copy? Maybe Solum needs a mechanism to pull in a prebuilt LP?
>
> On each docker server Solum downloads built LP’s from swift before the containers are created, so Docker has no reason to contact the public image repository for fetching the LP images because is has a local copy.
>
> Adrian
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Kevin
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Murali Allada [murali.allada at RACKSPACE.COM]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 12:53 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum][app-catalog] [ Supporting swift downloads for operator languagepacks
>>
>> Kevin\Keith,
>>
>> Yes, we would like to use the catalog for globally available artifacts, such as operator languagepacks. More specifically the catalog would be a great place to store metadata about publicly available artifacts to make them searchable and easy to discover.
>>
>> The catalog would point to the 'built' artifact, not the 'unbuilt' dockerfile in github.
>> The point of languagepacks is to reduce the amount of time the solum CI pipeline
>> spends building the users application container. We shouldn't build the languagepack from scratch each time.
>>
>> -Murali
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: Keith Bray <keith.bray at RACKSPACE.COM>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 2:10 PM
>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum][app-catalog] [ Supporting swift downloads for operator languagepacks
>>
>> Hi Kevin,
>>
>> We absolute envision languagepack artifacts being made available via
>> apps.openstack.org (ignoring for a moment that the name may not be a
>> perfect fit, particularly for things like vanilla glance images ... Is it
>> an OS or an App? ...  catalog.openstack.org might be more fitting).
>> Anyway, there are two stages for language packs, unbuilt, and built.  If
>> it's in an unbuilt state, then it's really a Dockerfile + any accessory
>> files that the Dockerfile references.   If it's in a built state, then
>> it's a Docker image (same as what is found on Dockerhub I believe).  I
>> think there will need to be more discussion to know what users prefer,
>> built vs. unbuilt, or both options (where unbuilt is often a collection of
>> files, best managed in a repo like github vs. built which are best
>> provided as direct links so a single source like Dockerhub).
>>
>> -Keith
>>
>> On 6/17/15 1:58 PM, "Fox, Kevin M" <Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> This question may be off on a tangent, or may be related.
>>>
>>> As part of the application catalog project, (http://apps.openstack.org/)
>>> we're trying to provide globally accessible resources that can be easily
>>> consumed in OpenStack Clouds. How would these global Language Packs fit
>>> in? Would the url record in the app catalog be required to point to an
>>> Internet facing public Swift system then? Or, would it point to the
>>> source git repo that Solum would use to generate the LP still?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Kevin
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: Randall Burt [randall.burt at RACKSPACE.COM]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:38 AM
>>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Solum] Supporting swift   downloads
>>> for     operator        languagepacks
>>>
>>> Yes. If an operator wants to make their LP publicly available outside of
>>> Solum, I was thinking they could just make GET's on the container public.
>>> That being said, I'm unsure if this is realistically do-able if you still
>>> have to have an authenticated tenant to access the objects. Scratch that;
>>> http://blog.fsquat.net/?p=40 may be helpful.
>>>
>>> On Jun 17, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Adrian Otto <adrian.otto at rackspace.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be clear, Randall is referring to a swift container (directory).
>>>>
>>>> Murali has a good idea of attempting to use swift client first, as it
>>>> has performance optimizations that can speed up the process more than
>>>> naive file transfer tools. I did mention to him that wget does have a
>>>> retiree feature, and that we could see about using curl instead to allow
>>>> for chunked encoding as additional optimizations.
>>>>
>>>> Randall, are you suggesting that we could use swift client for both
>>>> private and public LP uses? That sounds like a good suggestion to me.
>>>>
>>>> Adrian
>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 17, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Randall Burt
>>>>> <randall.burt at RACKSPACE.COM> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't an operator make the target container public therefore removing
>>>>> the need for multiple access strategies?
>>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original message --------
>>>>> From: Murali Allada
>>>>> Date:06/17/2015 11:41 AM (GMT-06:00)
>>>>> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
>>>>> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Solum] Supporting swift downloads for
>>>>> operator languagepacks
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello Solum Developers,
>>>>>
>>>>> When we were designing the operator languagepack feature for Solum, we
>>>>> wanted to make use of public urls to download operator LPs, such as
>>>>> those available for CDN backed swift containers we have at Rackspace,
>>>>> or any publicly accessible url. This would mean that when a user
>>>>> chooses to build applications on to​​p of a languagepack provided by
>>>>> the operator, we use a url to 'wget' the LP image.
>>>>>
>>>>> Recently, we have started noticing a number of failures because of
>>>>> corrupted docker images downloaded using 'wget'. The docker images work
>>>>> fine when we download them manually with a swift client and use them.
>>>>> The corruption seem to be happening when we try to download a large
>>>>> image using 'wget' and there are dropped packets or intermittent
>>>>> network issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> My thinking is to start using the swift client to download operator
>>>>> LPs by default instead of wget. The swift client already implements
>>>>> retry logic, downloading large images in chunks, etc. This means we
>>>>> would not get the niceties of using publicly accessible urls. However,
>>>>> the feature will be more reliable and robust.
>>>>>
>>>>> The implementation would be as follows:
>>>>>    • ​We'll use the existing service tenant configuration available
>>>>> in the solum config file to authenticate and store operator
>>>>> languagepacks using the swift client. We were using a different tenant
>>>>> to build and host LPs, but now that we require the tenants credentials
>>>>> in the config file, it's best to reuse the existing service tenant
>>>>> creds. Note: If we don't, we'll have 3 separate tenants to maintain.
>>>>>            • ​Service tenant
>>>>>            • Operator languagepack tenant
>>>>>            • Global admin tenant
>>>>>    • I'll keep the option to download the operator languagepacks
>>>>> from a publicly available url. I'll allow operators to choose which
>>>>> method they want to use by changing a setting in the solum config file.
>>>>> FYI: In my tests, I've noticed that downloading an image using the
>>>>> swift client is twice as fast as downloading the same image using
>>>>> 'wget' from a CDN url.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Murali
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________
>>>>> __
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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/20150618/4bfd5a45/attachment.html>