Open Stack

On 03/15/2017 11:37 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Monty, Team,
> 
> Sorry for the top post:
> 
> Support for etcd/tooz in devstack (with file driver as default) -
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445432/
> 
> As of right now both zookeeper driver and etcd driver is working fine:
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445630/
> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/445629/
> 
> The problem we have from before is that we do not have any CI jobs
> that used zookeeper.
> 
> I am leaning towards just throwing the etcd as default and if folks
> are interested in zookeeper then they can add specific CI jobs with
> DLM_BACKEND variable set.

That doesn't bother me - zk as the default choice was because at the
time zk worked and etcd did not.

That said - etcd3 is a newer/better thing - so maybe instead of driving
etcd home as a default before we add etcd3 support, we just change tooz
to support etcd3, add the devstack jobs to use that, and start from a
position that doesn't involve dealing with any legacy?

> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:
>> On 03/15/2017 03:13 AM, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>> On 03/14/2017 05:01 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>>> Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2017-03-14 15:30:32 -0400:
>>>>> On 03/14/2017 02:50 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 14 2017, Jay Pipes wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not tooz, because I'm not interested in a DLM nor leader election
>>>>>>> library
>>>>>>> (that's what the underlying etcd3 cluster handles for me), only a
>>>>>>> fast service
>>>>>>> liveness/healthcheck system, but it shows usage of etcd3 and Google
>>>>>>> Protocol
>>>>>>> Buffers implementing a simple API for liveness checking and host
>>>>>>> maintenance
>>>>>>> reporting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cool cool. So that's the same feature that we implemented in tooz 3
>>>>>> years ago. It's called "group membership". You create a group, make
>>>>>> nodes join it, and you know who's dead/alive and get notified when
>>>>>> their
>>>>>> status change.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point of os-lively is not to provide a thin API over ZooKeeper's
>>>>> group membership interface. The point of os-lively is to remove the need
>>>>> to have a database (RDBMS) record of a service in Nova.
>>>>
>>>> That's also the point of tooz's group membership API:
>>>>
>>>> https://docs.openstack.org/developer/tooz/compatibility.html#grouping
>>>
>>> Did you take a look at the code I wrote in os-lively? What part of the
>>> tooz group membership API do you think I would have used?
>>>
>>> Again, this was a weekend project that I was moving fast on. I looked at
>>> tooz and didn't see how I could use it for my purposes, which was to
>>> store a versioned object in a consistent key/value store with support
>>> for transactional semantics when storing index and data records at the
>>> same time [1]
>>>
>>> https://github.com/jaypipes/os-lively/blob/master/os_lively/service.py#L468-L511
>>>
>>>
>>> etcd3 -- and specifically etcd3, not etcd2 -- supports the transactional
>>> semantics in a consistent key/value store that I needed.
>>>
>>> tooz is cool, but it's not what I was looking for. It's solving a
>>> different problem than I was trying to solve.
>>>
>>> This isn't a case of NIH, despite what Julien is trying to intimate in
>>> his emails.
>>>
>>>>> tooz simply abstracts a group membership API across a number of drivers.
>>>>> I don't need that. I need a way to maintain a service record (with
>>>>> maintenance period information, region, and an evolvable data record
>>>>> format) and query those service records in an RDBMS-like manner but
>>>>> without the RDBMS being involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> servicegroup API with os-lively and eliminate Nova's use of an
>>>>>>> RDBMS for
>>>>>>> service liveness checking, which should dramatically reduce the
>>>>>>> amount of both
>>>>>>> DB traffic as well as conductor/MQ service update traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interesting. Joshua and Vilob tried to push usage of tooz group
>>>>>> membership a couple of years ago, but it got nowhere. Well, no, they
>>>>>> got
>>>>>> 2 specs written IIRC:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/liberty/approved/service-group-using-tooz.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then it died for whatever reasons on Nova side.
>>>>>
>>>>> It died because it didn't actually solve a problem.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that even if we incorporate tooz, we would still need to
>>>>> have a service table in the RDBMS and continue to query it over and over
>>>>> again in the scheduler and API nodes.
>>>>
>>>> Most likely it was designed with hesitance to have a tooz requirement
>>>> to be a source of truth. But it's certainly not a problem for most tooz
>>>> backends to be a source of truth. Certainly not for etcd or ZK, which
>>>> are both designed to be that.
>>>>
>>>>> I want all service information in the same place, and I don't want to
>>>>> use an RDBMS for that information. etcd3 provides an ideal place to
>>>>> store service record information. Google Protocol Buffers is an ideal
>>>>> data format for evolvable versioned objects. os-lively presents an API
>>>>> that solves the problem I want to solve in Nova. tooz didn't.
>>>>
>>>> Was there something inherent in tooz's design that prevented you from
>>>> adding it to tooz's group API? Said API already includes liveness (watch
>>>> the group that corresponds to the service you want).
>>>
>>> See above about transactional semantics.
>>>
>>> I'm actually happy to add an etcd3 group membership driver to tooz,
>>> though. After the experience gained this weekend using etcd3, I'd like
>>> to do that.
>>>
>>> Still doesn't mean that tooz would be the appropriate choice for what I
>>> was trying to do with os-lively, though.
>>>
>>>> The only thing missing is being able to get groups and group members
>>>> by secondary indexes. etcd3's built in indexes by field are pretty nice
>>>
>>> Not sure what you're talking about. etcd3 doesn't have any indexing by
>>> field. I built the os-lively library primarily as a well-defined set of
>>> index overlays (by uuid, by host, by service type, and by region) over
>>> etcd3's key/value store.
>>>
>>>> for that, but ZK can likely also do it too by maintaining the index in
>>>> the driver.
>>>
>>> Maybe, I'm not sure, I didn't spend much time this weekend looking at
>>> ZooKeeper.
>>
>> a) awesome. when the rest of this dips momentarily into words that might
>> sound negative, please hear it all wrapped in an "awesome" and know that
>> my personal desire is to see the thing you're working on be successful
>> without undue burden...
>>
>> b) In Tokyo, we had the big discussion about DLMs (where at least my
>> intent going in to the room was to get us to pick one and only one).
>> There were three camps in the room who were all vocal:
>>
>> 1) YES! Let's just pick one, I don't care which one
>> 2) I hate Java I don't want to run Zookeeper, so we can't pick that
>> 3) I hate go/don't trust coreos I don't want to run etcd so we can't
>> pick that
>>
>> Because of 2 and 3 the group represented by 1 lost and we ended up with:
>> "crap, we have to use an abstraction library"
>>
>> I'd argue that unless something has changed significantly, having Nova
>> grow a direct depend on etcd when the DLM discussion brought us to "the
>> operators in the room have expressed a need for a pluggable choice
>> between at least zk and etcd" should be pretty much a non-starter.
>>
>> Now, being that I was personally in group 1, I'd be THRILLED if we
>> could, as a community, decide to pick one and skip having an abstraction
>> library. I still don't care which one - and you know I love gRPC/protobuf.
>>
>> But I do think that given the anti-etcd sentiment that was expressed was
>> equally as vehement as the anti-zk sentiment, that we need to circle
>> back and make a legit call on this topic.
>>
>> If we can pick one, I think having special-purpose libraries like
>> os-lively for specific purposes would be neat.
>>
>> If we still can't pick one, then I think adding the liveness check you
>> implemented for os-lively as a new feature in tooz and also implementing
>> the same thing in the zk driver would be necessary. (of course, that'll
>> probably depend on getting etcd3 support added to tooz and making sure
>> there is a good functional test for etcd3.
>>
>> c) awesome
>>
>>>> I understand abstractions can seem pretty cumbersome when you're moving
>>>> fast. It's not something I want to see stand in your way. But it would
>>>> be nice to see where there's deficiency in tooz so we can be there for
>>>> the next project that needs it and maybe eventually factor out direct
>>>> etcd3 usage so users who have maybe chosen ZK as their tooz backend can
>>>> also benefit from your work.
>>>
>>> It's not a deficiency in tooz. It's a different problem domain. Look at
>>> the os-lively API and show me how you think I could have used tooz to
>>> implement that API.
>>
>> I think I already said this above - but what I was reading/hearing is
>> "why not add add the feature you need to tooz" ... not "tooz does that
>> already" - however, as you said, you were doing quick weekend POC work,
>> so it's possible that adding this to tooz is a next step.
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
> 
> 
>