Open Stack

Excerpts from joehuang's message of 2017-04-13 00:47:53 +0000:
>  Interesting to know the idea considering OpenStack as group of constellations. Does it mean even
> Nova/Cinder/Neutron are not necessary to be tied together in some user cases?

To me, the important aspect of calling OpenStack "one thing"
(platform, product, toolbox, whatever) has always been that when
used together the components appear cohesive. They have similar
APIs, similar deployment patterns, etc. There are obviously going
to be some underlying differences because a block storage service
is not a VM manager -- they provide different features and need
different inputs.  But the differences should not be surprising or
arbitrary (returning different payloads from the "version" API, to
take an example from another recent thread). It should look like
the teams producing the different components like each other and
get together in person regularly to collaborate.

If we have that, then it doesn't matter so much whether every
deployer installs every single component, or only the ones they
need for their use cases.

Doug

> 
> Seems that "one platform" has not been got consensus yet. But the marketing material of
> OpenStack is claiming "one platform" [1][2]
> 
> [1] https://www.openstack.org/assets/marketing/OpenStack-101-Modular-Deck-1.pptx
> [2] OpenStack 101,  https://www.openstack.org/marketing/#tab=collateral
> 
> Best Regards
> Chaoyi Huang (joehuang)
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: John Garbutt [john at johngarbutt.com]
> Sent: 12 April 2017 18:51
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc][elections]questions about one platform        vision
> 
> On 12 April 2017 at 03:54, joehuang <joehuang at huawei.com> wrote:
> > What's the one platform will be in your own words? What's your proposal and
> > your focus to help one platform vision being achieved?
> 
> The more I think about this, the less I like the phrase "one platform".
> 
> I like to think of OpenStack as group of constellations. Those
> constellations are groups of projects that are built to be used
> together around a shared set of use cases and users. Note that many
> (all?) of those constellations involve open source projects that were
> born and live outside of OpenStack.
> 
> I am trying to kick start the "VM and baremetal" working group to get
> feedback on a specific constellation as a group of projects. Here I am
> thinking about running Nova, Cinder, Neutron, Keystone, etc to give
> you (in some sense) a Software Defined Data Center. Many applications
> and services need to consume and integrate with that platform, like
> Heat, Trove and Magnum, to can get access to the compute, networking
> and storage they need to execute their workloads, such as containers.
> Its like the next generation of consolidation to get to the next level
> of utilization/efficiency. If you look at this constellation the
> database and message queue are important non-OpenStack components of
> the constellation. Maybe this is a false constellation, and there is a
> different set of things that people use together. Thats some of the
> feedback I hope we get at the forum.
> 
> The work ttx mentions is important. I hope the project maps will help
> communicate how users can meet their needs by running various
> combinations of OpenStack and non-OpenStack projects together.
> 
> To be clear, I am not claiming to have the answers here, this is just
> my current thinking. I look forward to all the debate and discussions
> around this topic, and all the interesting things I will learn about
> along that journey, things that will likely make me change my mind.
> 
> Thanks,
> johnthetubaguy
>