Open Stack

The trouble with putting more intelligence in the clients is that there are
more clients than just the one we provide, and the more smarts we require
in the clients, the more divergence of functionality we're likely to see.
Also, bugs and slowly percolating bug fixes.
On 28 Sep 2015 11:27, "Sylvain Bauza" <sbauza at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> Le 25/09/2015 16:12, Andrew Laski a écrit :
>
>> On 09/24/15 at 03:13pm, James Penick wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> At risk of getting too offtopic I think there's an alternate solution to
>>>> doing this in Nova or on the client side.  I think we're missing some
>>>> sort
>>>> of OpenStack API and service that can handle this.  Nova is a low level
>>>> infrastructure API and service, it is not designed to handle these
>>>> orchestrations.  I haven't checked in on Heat in a while but perhaps
>>>> this
>>>> is a role that it could fill.
>>>>
>>>> I think that too many people consider Nova to be *the* OpenStack API
>>>> when
>>>> considering instances/volumes/networking/images and that's not
>>>> something I
>>>> would like to see continue.  Or at the very least I would like to see a
>>>> split between the orchestration/proxy pieces and the "manage my
>>>> VM/container/baremetal" bits
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> (new thread)
>>> You've hit on one of my biggest issues right now: As far as many
>>> deployers
>>> and consumers are concerned (and definitely what I tell my users within
>>> Yahoo): The value of an OpenStack value-stream (compute, network,
>>> storage)
>>> is to provide a single consistent API for abstracting and managing those
>>> infrastructure resources.
>>>
>>> Take networking: I can manage Firewalls, switches, IP selection, SDN, etc
>>> through Neutron. But for compute, If I want VM I go through Nova, for
>>> Baremetal I can -mostly- go through Nova, and for containers I would talk
>>> to Magnum or use something like the nova docker driver.
>>>
>>> This means that, by default, Nova -is- the closest thing to a top level
>>> abstraction layer for compute. But if that is explicitly against Nova's
>>> charter, and Nova isn't going to be the top level abstraction for all
>>> things Compute, then something else needs to fill that space. When that
>>> happens, all things common to compute provisioning should come out of
>>> Nova
>>> and move into that new API. Availability zones, Quota, etc.
>>>
>>
>> I do think Nova is the top level abstraction layer for compute. My issue
>> is when Nova is asked to manage other resources.  There's no API call to
>> tell Cinder "create a volume and attach it to this instance, and create
>> that instance if it doesn't exist."  And I'm not sure why the reverse isn't
>> true.
>>
>> I want Nova to be the absolute best API for managing compute resources.
>> It's when someone is managing compute and volumes and networks together
>> that I don't feel that Nova is the best place for that.  Most importantly
>> right now it seems that not everyone is on the same page on this and I
>> think it would be beneficial to come together and figure out what sort of
>> workloads the Nova API is intending to provide.
>>
>
> I totally agree with you on those points :
>  - nova API should be only supporting CRUD operations for compute VMs and
> should no longer manage neither volumes nor networks IMHO, because it
> creates more problems than it resolves
>  - given the above, nova API could possibly accept resources from networks
> or volumes but only for placement decisions related to instances.
>
> Tho, I can also understand that operators sometimes just want a single
> tool for creating this kind of relationship between a volume and an
> instance (and not provide a YAML file), but IMHO, it doesn't perhaps need a
> top-level API, just a python client able to do some very simple
> orchestration between services, something like openstack-client.
>
> I don't really see a uber-value for getting a proxy API calling Nova or
> Neutron. IMHO, that should still be done by clients, not services.
>
> -Sylvain
>
>
>>
>>> -James
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> 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/20150928/58226ae5/attachment.html>