Open Stack

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 07:40:05AM -0500, James Slagle wrote:
> >    On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 4:46 AM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >      On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:45:30PM -0600, Ben Nemec wrote:
> >      > On 01/25/2016 03:56 PM, Steven Hardy wrote:
> >      > > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 11:24:20AM -0600, Ben Nemec wrote:
> >      > >> So I haven't weighed in on this yet, in part because I was on
> >      vacation
> >      > >> when it was first proposed and missed a lot of the initial
> >      discussion,
> >      > >> and also because I wanted to take some time to order my
> thoughts on
> >      it.
> >      > >>Â  Also because my initial reaction...was not conducive to calm
> and
> >      > >> rational discussion. ;-)
> >      > >>
> >      > >> The tldr is that I don't like it.  To explain why, I'm going
> to
> >      make a
> >      > >> list (everyone loves lists, right? Top $NUMBER reasons we
> should
> >      stop
> >      > >> expecting other people to write our API for us):
> >      > >>
> >      > >> 1) We've been down this road before.  Except last time it was
> with
> >      Heat.
> >      > >>Â  I'm being somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, but expecting a
> general
> >      > >> service to provide us a user-friendly API for our specific use
> case
> >      just
> >      > >> doesn't make sense to me.
> >      > >
> >      > > Actually, we've been down this road before with Tuskar, and
> >      discovered that
> >      > > designing and maintaining a bespoke API for TripleO is really
> hard.
> >      >
> >      > My takeaway from Tuskar was that designing an API that none of the
> >      > developers on the project use is doomed to fail.  Tuskar also
> >      suffered
> >      > from a lack of some features in Heat that the new API is
> explicitly
> >      > depending on in an attempt to avoid many of the problems Tuskar
> had.
> >      >
> >      > Problem #1 is still developer apathy IMHO though.
> >
> >      I think the main issue is developer capacity - we're a small
> community
> >      and
> >      I for one am worried about the effort involved with building and
> >      maintaining a bespoke API - thus this whole discussion is
> essentially
> >      about
> >      finding a quicker and easier way to meet the needs of those needing
> an
> >      API.
> >
> >      In terms of apathy, I think as a developer I don't need an
> abstraction
> >      between me, my templates and heat.  Some advanced operators will
> feel
> >      likewise, others won't.  What I would find useful sometimes is a
> >      general
> >      purpose workflow engine, which is where I think the more pluggable
> >      mistral
> >      based solution may have advantages in terms of developer and
> advanced
> >      operator uptake.
> >      > > I somewhat agree that heat as an API is insufficient, but that
> >      doesn't
> >      > > necessarily imply you have to have a TripleO specific
> abstraction,
> >      just
> >      > > that *an* abstraction is required.
> >      > >
> >      > >> 2) The TripleO API is not a workflow API.  I also largely
> missed
> >      this
> >      > >> discussion, but the TripleO API is a _Deployment_ API.  In
> some
> >      cases
> >      > >> there also happens to be a workflow going on behind the
> scenes, but
> >      > >> honestly that's not something I want our users to have to care
> >      about.
> >      > >
> >      > > How would you differentiate between "deployment" in a generic
> sense
> >      in
> >      > > contrast to a generic workflow?
> >      > >
> >      > > Every deployment I can think of involves a series of steps,
> >      involving some
> >      > > choices and interactions with other services.  That *is* a
> >      workflow?
> >      >
> >      > Well, I mean if we want to take this to extremes then pretty much
> >      every
> >      > API is a workflow API.  You make a REST call, a "workflow"
> happens in
> >      > the service, and you get back a result.
> >      >
> >      > Let me turn this around: Would you implement Heat's API on
> Mistral?Â
> >      All
> >      > that happens when I call Heat is that a series of OpenStack calls
> are
> >      > made from heat-engine, after all.  Or is that a gross
> >      oversimplification
> >      > of what's happening?  I could argue that the same is true of this
> >      > discussion. :-)
> >
> >      As Hugh has mentioned the main thing Heat does is actually manage
> >      dependencies.  It processes the templates, builds a graph, then
> walks
> >      the
> >      graph running a "workflow" to create/update/delete/etc each
> resource.
> >
> >      I could imagine a future where we interface to some external
> workflow
> >      tool to
> >      e.g do each resource action (e.g create a nova server, poll until
> it's
> >      active),
> >      however that's actually a pretty high overhead approach, and it'd
> >      probably
> >      be better to move towards better use of notifications instead (e.g
> less
> >      internal workflow)
> >      > >> 3) It ties us 100% to a given implementation.  If Mistral
> proves
> >      to be a
> >      > >> poor choice for some reason, or insufficient for a particular
> use
> >      case,
> >      > >> we have no alternative.  If we have an API and decide to
> change
> >      our
> >      > >> implementation, nobody has to know or care.  This is kind of
> the
> >      whole
> >      > >> point of having an API - it shields users from all the nasty
> >      > >> implementation details under the surface.
> >      > >
> >      > > This is a valid argument, but building (and maintining,
> forever) a
> >      bespoke
> >      > > API is a high cost to pay for this additional degree of
> abstraction,
> >      and
> >      > > when you think of the target audience, I'm not certain it's
> entirely
> >      > > justified (or, honestly, if our community can bear that
> overhead);
> >      > >
> >      > > For example, take other single-purpose "deployment" projects,
> such
> >      as
> >      > > Sahara, Magnum, perhaps Trove.  These are designed primarily as
> >      user-facing
> >      > > API's, where the services will ultimately be consumed by public
> and
> >      private
> >      > > cloud customers.
> >      > >
> >      > > Contrast with TripleO, where our target audience is, for the
> most
> >      part,
> >      > > sysadmins who deploy and maintain an openstack deployment over a
> >      long
> >      > > period of time.  There are two main groups here:
> >      > >
> >      > > 1. PoC "getting started" folks who need a very simple on-ramp
> >      (generalizing
> >      > > somewhat, the audience for the opinionated deployments driven
> via
> >      UI's)
> >      > >
> >      > > 2. Seasoned sysadmins who want plugability, control and
> flexibility
> >      above
> >      > > all else (and, simplicity and lack of extraneous abstractions)
> >      > >
> >      > > A bespoke API potentially has a fairly high value to (1), but a
> very
> >      low or
> >      > > even negative value to (2).  Which is why this is turning out
> to be
> >      a tough
> >      > > and polarized discussion, unfortunately.
> >      >
> >      > Well, to be honest I'm not sure we can satisfy the second type of
> user
> >      > with what we have today anyway.  Our Heat-driven puppet is hardly
> >      > lightweight or simple, and there are extraneous abstractions all
> over
> >      > the place (see also every place that we have a Heat template param
> >      that
> >      > exists solely to get plugged into a puppet hiera file :-).
> >      >
> >      > To me, this is mostly an artifact of the original intent of the
> Heat
> >      > templates being _the_ abstraction that would then be translated
> into
> >      > os-*-config, puppet, or [insert deployment tool of choice] by the
> >      > templates, and I have to admit I'm not sure how to fix it for
> these
> >      users.
> >
> >      I think we fix it by giving them a choice.  E.g along the lines of
> the
> >      "split stack" approach discussed at summit - allow operators to
> choose
> >      either pre-defined roles with known interfaces (parameters), or
> deploy
> >      just
> >      the infrastructure (servers, networking, maybe storage) then drive
> >      configuration tooling with a much thinner interface.
> >      > So I guess the question is, how does having an API hurt those
> power
> >      > users?  They'll still be able/have to edit Heat templates to
> deploy
> >      > additional services.  They'll still have all the usual openstack
> >      clients
> >      > to customize their Ironic or Nova setups.  They're already using
> an
> >      API
> >      > today, it's just one written entirely in the client.
> >
> >      There's already a bunch of opaque complexity inside the client and
> >      TripleO
> >      common, adding a very rigid API makes it more opaque, and harder to
> >      modify.
> >      > On the other hand, an API that can help guide a user through the
> >      deploy
> >      > process (You say you want network isolation enabled?  Well here
> are
> >      the
> >      > parameters you need to configure...) could make a huge difference
> for
> >      > the first type of user, as would _any_ API usable by the GUI
> (people
> >      > just like pretty GUIs, whether it's actually better than the CLI
> or
> >      not :-).
> >      >
> >      > I guess it is somewhat subjective as you say, but to me the API
> >      doesn't
> >      > significantly affect the power user experience, but it would
> massively
> >      > improve the newbie experience.  That makes it a win in my book.
> >
> >      I agree 100% that we need to massively improve the newbie
> experience - I
> >      think everybody does.  I also think we also all agree there must
> be a
> >      stable, versioned API that a UI/CLI can interact with.
> >
> >      The question in my mind is, can we address that requirement *and*
> >      provide
> >      something of non-negative value for developers and advanced
> operators.
> >
> >      Ryan already commented earlier in this thread (and I agree having
> seen
> >      Dan's most recent PoC in action) that it doesn't make a lot of
> >      difference
> >      from a consumer-of-api perspective which choice we make in terms of
> APi
> >      impelementation, either approach can help provide the stable API
> surface
> >      that is needed.
> >
> >      The main difference is, only one choice provides any flexibility at
> all
> >      wrt
> >      operator customization (unless we reinvent a similar action plugin
> >      mechanism
> >      inside a TripleO API).
> >      > >> 4) It raises the bar even further for both new deployers and
> >      developers.
> >      > >>Â  You already need to have a pretty firm grasp of Puppet and
> Heat
> >      > >> templates to understand how our stuff works, not to mention a
> >      decent
> >      > >> understanding of quite a number of OpenStack services.
> >      > >
> >      > > I'm not really sure if a bespoke WSGI app vs an existing one
> >      (mistral)
> >      > > really makes much difference at all wrt raising the bar.  I
> see it
> >      > > primarily as in implementation detail tbh.
> >      >
> >      > I guess that depends.  Most people in OpenStack already know at
> least
> >      > some Python, and if you've done any work in the other projects
> there's
> >      a
> >      > fair chance you are familiar with the Python clients.  How many
> >      people
> >      > know Mistral YAML?
> >
> >      So, I think you're conflating the OpenStack developer community
> (who,
> >      mostly, know python), with end-users and Operators, where IME the
> same
> >      is
> >      often not true.
> >
> >      Think of more traditional enterprise environments - how many
> sysadmins
> >      on
> >      the unix team are hardcore python hackers?  Not that many IME
> (ignoring
> >      more devops style environments here).
> >      > Maybe I'm overestimating the Python knowledge in the community,
> and
> >      > underestimating the Mistral knowledge, but I would bet we're
> talking
> >      > order(s?) of magnitude in terms of the difference.  And I'm not
> >      saying
> >      > learning Mistral is a huge task on its own, but it's one more
> thing in
> >      a
> >      > project full of one more things.
> >
> >      It's one more thing, which is already maintained and has an active
> >      community, vs yet-another-bespoke-special-to-tripleo-thing.  IMHO
> we
> >      have
> >      *way* too many tripleo specific things already.
> >
> >      However, lets look at the "python knowledge" thing in a bit more
> detail.
> >
> >      Let's say, as an operator I want to wire in a HTTP call to an
> internal
> >      asset
> >      management system.  The requirement is to log an HTTP call with
> some
> >      content every time an overcloud is deployed or updated.  (This
> sort of
> >      requirement is *very* common in enterprise environments IME)
> >
> >      In the mistral case[1], the modification would look something like:
> >
> >      http_task:
> >      Â  action: std.http url='assets.foo.com' <some arguments>
> >
> >      You'd simply add two lines to your TripleO deployment workflow
> yaml[2]:
> >
> >    â**This is where the argument for Mistral really breaks down for me.
> One
> >    of the advantages of Mistral shouldn't be that it makes it easier for
> >    operators to modify TripleO delivered workflows. If that becomes
> >    necessary, we haven't implemented the solution in a flexible enough
> way.
> >    Maybe you're just illustrating an example here of someone who is
> >    completely set on forking TripleO. But in that case, then the example
> >    isn't really all that relevant since we shouldn't be making a
> technical
> >    choice based on that use case.â**
> >    Your points below about which would be easier, modifying python code
> or
> >    yaml files, really apply either way. The argument seems to be "let's
> use
> >    Mistral because it's backed by yaml which is easier for operators to
> >    modify".
>
> How is wanting to make a single HTTP request to some non-openstack system
> the same as "completely set on forking TripleO"?  Sorry, but I can't
> reconcile my simple (and IME realistic, from working with actual customers)
> example with your response at all.
>


I'm not disagreeing that one way would be easier to change than the other.
I'm totally with you that your yaml example is simpler, and if that is an
easier on ramp for operators to submit patches back to TripleO, then that
is definitely an advantage of one choice over the other.

More importantly though, I'm talking about how the system is intended to be
used: What, we as community, advertise as the supported way to interact and
customize TripleO for individual needs.

Just for clarity's sake, obviously we welcome all contributions if they are
improvements and are inline with the project's goals.​

But, that doesn't mean that we advertise that the way to use TripleO is to
directly modify the yaml workflows that we would deliver and release. And
that we say we support that as a community, will deliver automatic updates
for you in spite of your customizations, and will promise API compatibility
in spite of your changes.

If someone finds that they must do modifications to files we ship, and they
still choose to use TripleO, then it is a fork -- not saying that it's a
big "evil" fork -- just that they have diverged from upstream TripleO, and
are on their own for maintaining that until such time it's merged upstream.

Now, whether they've modified yaml or python, I think it makes little
difference. Obviously, yaml is likely easier to initially modify. But I'm
not convinced those modifications are then any easier for that operator to
have to maintain, update, and make compatible with future TripleO releases.

​I think what I'm seeking in this discussion is getting off on the right
foot in terms of defining the interface if we choose Mistral. In hopes to
avoid the situation we have now with tripleo-heat-templates, where we have
hacked up and customized templates being used in production that are very
difficult to support as a community (if even possible at all). The
ExtraConfig resources address just one piece of the problem. Things like
required parameter changes, nic config changes requiring people to modify
their nic templates continually, etc.

Anyway, my whole point here is not Mistral vs TripleO API...so I'm guilty
of threadjacking a bit. I just get itchy when I see it held up as an
advantage of Mistral of how easy it will be for people to customize yaml
files that TripleO will release...without expressly stating that such
situations should be the exception for operators, not the expectation.



>
> Lets use another example - you have a proprietary revision control system,
> and you want to pull your golden templates from there, instead of from
> swift or the local filesystem.  Same problem!
>
> The point is, it's *far* easier to make and maintain a simple change to a
> relatively constrained but general purpose workflow interface than it is to
> fork and maintain a bunch of python code indefinitely (unless we reinvent a
> plugin interface exactly like Mistral already has).
>

​Again, the point here is that whether you fork and maintain yaml or
python...it's the same. You're maintaining somthing indefinitely until such
time your change is accepted upstream.​


> Even if we were to decide the workflows were strictly internal
> the same argument holds for developers - lets say the requirement I outline
> appears on your backlog tomorrow - how many days of python development
> will

it take, vs the two-line change I outline?
>

​





> It's only an example, but I'm trying to illustrate there is potentially
> value in not reinventing every.single.wheel every time :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Steve
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>



-- 
-- James Slagle
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160126/72b9ca8d/attachment.html>