[openstack-dev] Announcing Ekko -- Scalable block-based backup for OpenStack

Emilien Macchi emilien at redhat.com
Wed Jan 27 17:16:26 UTC 2016

On 01/27/2016 10:51 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On 01/27/2016 12:53 PM, gordon chung wrote:
>>> It makes for a crappy user experience. Crappier than the crappy user
>>> experience that OpenStack API users already have because we have done a
>>> crappy job shepherding projects in order to make sure there isn't
>>> overlap between their APIs (yes, Ceilometer and Monasca, I'm looking
>>> directly at you).
>> ... yes, Ceilometer can easily handle your events and meters and store
>> them in either Elasticsearch or Gnocchi for visualisations. you just
>> need to create a new definition in our mapping files[1][2]. you will
>> definitely want to coordinate the naming of your messages. ie.
>> event_type == backup.<ekko_scope> and event_type ==
>> backup.<freezer_scope>.
> This isn't at all what I was referring to, actually. I was referring to
> my belief that we (the API WG, the TC, whatever...) have failed to
> properly prevent almost complete and total overlap of the Ceilometer [1]
> and Monasca [2] REST APIs.
> They are virtually identical in purpose, but in frustrating
> slightly-inconsistent ways. and this means that users of the "OpenStack
> APIs" have absolutely no idea what the "OpenStack Telemetry API" really is.
> Both APIs have /alarms as a top-level resource endpoint. One of them
> refers to the alarm notification with /alarms, while the other refers to
> the alarm definition with /alarms.
> One API has /meters as a top-level resource endpoint. The other uses
> /metrics to mean the exact same thing.
> One API has /samples as a top-level resource endpoint. The other uses
> /metrics/measurements to mean the exact same thing.
> One API returns a list JSON object for list results. The other returns a
> dict JSON object with a "links" key and an "elements" key.
> And the list goes on... all producing a horrible non-unified,
> overly-complicated and redundant experience for our API users.

I agree with you here Jay, Monasca is a great example of failure in
having consistency across OpenStack projects.
It's a different topic but maybe a retrospective of what happened could
help our community to not reproduce the same mistakes again.

Please do not repeat this failure for other projects.
Do not duplicate efforts: if Ekko has a similar mission statement, maybe
we should avoid creating a new project and contribute to Freezer?
(I'm probably missing some technical bits so tell me if I'm wrong)

As an operator, I don't want see 2 OpenStack projects solving the same
As a developer, I don't want to implement the same feature in 2
different projects.

If we have (again) 2 projects with the same mission statement, I think
we'll waste time & resources, and eventually isolate people working on
their own projects.

I'm sure we don't want that.
Emilien Macchi

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160127/b1094715/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list