[openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove
thierry at openstack.org
Wed Jun 21 08:52:40 UTC 2017
Zane Bitter wrote:
> Until then it seems to me that the tradeoff is between decoupling it
> from the particular cloud it's running on so that users can optionally
> deploy it standalone (essentially Vish's proposed solution for the *aaS
> services from many moons ago) vs. decoupling it from OpenStack in
> general so that the operator has more flexibility in how to deploy.
> I'd love to be able to cover both - from a user using it standalone to
> spin up and manage a DB in containers on a shared PaaS, through to a
> user accessing it as a service to provide a DB running on a dedicated VM
> or bare metal server, and everything in between. I don't know is such a
> thing is feasible. I suspect we're going to have to talk a lot about VMs
> and network plumbing and volume storage :)
As another data point, we are seeing this very same tradeoff with Magnum
vs. Tessmaster (with "I want to get a Kubernetes cluster" rather than "I
want to get a database").
Tessmaster is the user-side tool from EBay deploying Kubernetes on
different underlying cloud infrastructures: takes a bunch of cloud
credentials, then deploys, grows and shrinks Kubernetes cluster for you.
Magnum is the infrastructure-side tool from OpenStack giving you
COE-as-a-service, through a provisioning API.
Jay is advocating for Trove to be more like Tessmaster, and less like
Magnum. I think I agree with Zane that those are two different approaches:
>From a public cloud provider perspective serving lots of small users, I
think a provisioning API makes sense. The user in that case is in a
"black box" approach, so I think the resulting resources should not
really be accessible as VMs by the tenant, even if they end up being
Nova VMs. The provisioning API could propose several options (K8s or
Mesos, MySQL or PostgreSQL).
>From a private cloud / hybrid cloud / large cloud user perspective, the
user-side deployment tool, letting you deploy the software on various
types of infrastructure, probably makes more sense. It's probably more
work to run it, but you gain in flexibility. That user-side tool would
probably not support multiple options, but be application-specific.
So yes, ideally we would cover both. Because they target different
users, and both are right...
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
More information about the OpenStack-dev