[openstack-dev] [kolla] Heka v ELK stack logistics

Michał Jastrzębski inc007 at gmail.com
Thu Jan 14 14:56:03 UTC 2016

On 14 January 2016 at 04:46, Eric LEMOINE <elemoine at mirantis.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com> wrote:
>> Hey folks,
>> I'd like to have a mailing list discussion about logistics of the ELKSTACK
>> solution that Alicja has sorted out vs the Heka implementation that Eric is
>> proposing.
>> My take on that is Eric wants to replace rsyslog and logstash with Heka.
> See my other email on this point.  At this point, given the
> requirements we have (get logs from services that only speak syslog
> and write logs to local files), we cannot guarantee that Heka will
> replace Rsyslog.  We are going to test the use of Heka's UdpInput
> (with "net" set to "unixgram") et FileOutput plugins for that.  Stay
> tuned!

Yeah, also please try out different configs of only-rsyslog services.
Maybe Mariadb can be set up in a way compliant with heka?

>> That seems fine, but I want to make certain this doesn't happen in a way
>> that leaves Kolla completely non-functional as we finish up Mitaka.  Liberty
>> is the first version of Kolla people will deploy, and Mitaka is the first
>> version of Kolla people will upgrade to, so making sure that we don't
>> completely bust diagnostics (and I recognize diags as is are a little weak
>> is critical).
>> It sounds like from my reading of the previous thread on this topic, unless
>> there is some intractable problem, our goal is to use Heka to replace
>> resyslog and logstash.  I'd ask inc0 (who did the rsyslog work) and Alicja
>> (who did the elkstack work) to understand that replacement often happens on
>> work that has already been done, and its not a "waste of time" so to speak
>> as an evolution of the system.
>> Here are the deadlines:
>> http://docs.openstack.org/releases/schedules/mitaka.html
>> Let me help decode that for folks. March 4th is the final deadline to have a
>> completely working solution based upon Heka if its to enter Mitaka.
> Understood.
>> Unlike previous releases of Kolla, I want to hand off release management of
>> Kolla to the release management team, and to do that, we need to show a
>> track record of hitting our deadlines and not adding features past feature
>> freeze (the m3 milestone on March 4th).  In the past releases of Kolla we as
>> a team were super loose on this requirement – going forward I prefer us
>> being super strict.  Handing off to release management is a sign of maturity
>> and would have an overall positive impact, assuming we can get the software
>> written in time :)
>> Eric,
>> I'd like a plan and commitment to either hit Mitaka 3, or the N cycle.  It
>> must work well first on Ansible, and second on Mesos.  If it doesn't work at
>> all on Mesos, I could live with that -  I think the Mesos implementation
>> will really not be ready for prime time until the middle or completion of
>> the N cycle.  We lead with Ansible, and I don't see that changing any time
>> soon – as a result, I want our Ansible deployment to be rock solid and
>> usable out of the gate.  I don't expect to "Market" Mitaka Mesos (with the
>> OpenStack foundation's help) as "production ready" but rather as "tech
>> preview" and something for folks to evaluate.
> It is our intent to meet the March 4th deadline.
>> Alicja,
>> I think a parallel development effort with the ELKSTACK that your working on
>> makes sense.  In case the Heka development fails entirely, or misses Mitaka
>> 3, I don't want us left lacking a diagnostics solution for Mitaka.
>> Diagnostics is my priority #2 for Kolla (#1 is upgrades).  Unfortunately
>> what this means is you may end up wasting your time doing development that
>> is replaced at the last minute in Mitaka 3, or later in the N cycle.  This
>> is very common in software development (all the code I wrote for Magnum has
>> been sadly replaced).  I know you can be a good team player here and take
>> one for the team so to speak, but I'm asking you if you would take offense
>> to this approach.
> I'd like to moderate this a bit.  We want to build on Alicja's work,
> and we will reuse everything that Alicja has done/will do on
> Elasticsearch and Kibana, as this part of the stack will be the same.
>> I'd like comments/questions/concerns on the above logistics approach
>> discussed, and a commitment from Eric as to when he thinks all the code
>> would land as one patch stream unit.
>> I'd also like to see the code come in as one super big patch stream (think
>> 30 patches in the stream) so the work can be evaluated and merged as one
>> unit.  I could also live with 2-3 different patch streams with 10-15 patches
>> per stream, just so we can eval as a unit.  This means lots of rebasing on
>> your part Eric ;-)  It also means a commitment from the core reviewer team
>> to test and review this critical change.  If there isn't a core reviewer on
>> board with this approach, please speak up now.

I'm on board:)

> Makes total sense to me.
> Thanks.
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list