Open Stack

On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 16:41:11 -0400, Doug Hellmann wrote:
> Excerpts from melanie witt's message of 2018-08-21 12:53:43 -0700:
>> On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 06:50:56 -0500, Matt Riedemann wrote:
>>> At this point, I think we're at:
>>>
>>> 1. Should placement be extracted into it's own git repo in Stein while
>>> nova still has known major issues which will have dependencies on
>>> placement changes, mainly modeling affinity?
>>>
>>> 2. If we extract, does it go under compute governance or a new project
>>> with a new PTL.
>>>
>>> As I've said, I personally believe that unless we have concrete plans
>>> for the big items in #1, we shouldn't hold up the extraction. We said in
>>> Dublin we wouldn't extract to a new git repo in Rocky but we'd work up
>>> to that point so we could do it in Stein, so this shouldn't surprise
>>> anyone. The actual code extraction and re-packaging and all that is
>>> going to be the biggest technical issue with all of this, and will
>>> likely take all of stein to complete it after all the bugs are shaken out.
>>>
>>> For #2, I think for now, in the interim, while we deal with the
>>> technical headache of the code extraction itself, it's best to leave the
>>> new repo under compute governance so the existing team is intact and we
>>> don't conflate the people issue with the technical issue at the same
>>> time. Get the hard technical part done first, and then we can move it
>>> out of compute governance. Once it's in its own git repo, we can change
>>> the core team as needed but I think it should be initialized with
>>> existing nova-core.
>>
>> I'm in support of extracting placement into its own git repo because
>> Chris has done a lot of work to reduce dependencies in placement and
>> moving it into its own repo would help in not having to keep chasing
>> that. As has been said before, I think all of us agree that placement
>> should be separate as an end goal. The question is when to fully
>> separate it from governance.
>>
>> It's true that we don't have concrete plans for affinity modeling and
>> shared storage modeling. But I think we do have concrete plans for vGPU
>> enhancements (being able to have different vGPU types on one compute
>> host and adding support for traits). vGPU support is an important and
>> highly sought after feature for operators and users, as we witnessed at
>> the last Summit in Vancouver. vGPU support is currently using a flat
>> resource provider structure that needs to be migrated to nested in order
>> to do the enhancement work, and that's how the reshaper work came about.
>> (Reshaper work will migrate a flat resource provider structure to a
>> nested one.)
>>
>> We have the nested resource provider support in placement but we need to
>> integrate the Nova side, leveraging the reshaper code. The reshaper code
>> is still going through code review, then next we have the integration to
>> do. I think things are bound to break when we integrate it, just because
>> nothing is ever perfect, as much as we scrutinize it and the real test
>> is when we start using it for real. I think going through this
>> integration would be best done *before* extraction to a new repo. But
>> given that there is never a "good" time to extract something to a new
>> repo, I am OK with the idea of doing the extraction first, if that is
>> what most people want to do.
>>
>> What I'm concerned about on the governance piece is how things look as
>> far as project priorities between the two projects if they are split.
>> Affinity modeling and shared storage support are compute features
>> OpenStack operators and users need. Operators need affinity modeling in
>> the placement is needed to achieve parity for affinity scheduling with
>> multiple cells. That means, affinity scheduling in Nova with multiple
>> cells is susceptible to races and does *not* work as well as the
>> previous single cell support. Shared storage support is something
>> operators have badly needed for years now and was envisioned to be
>> solved with placement.
>>
>> Given all of that, I'm not seeing how *now* is a good time to separate
>> the placement project under separate governance with separate goals and
>> priorities. If operators need things for compute, that are well-known
>> and that placement was created to solve, how will placement have a
>> shared interest in solving compute problems, if it is not part of the
>> compute project?
>>
> 
> Who are candidates to be members of a review team for the placement
> repository after the code is moved out of openstack/nova?
> 
> How many of them are also members of the nova-core team?

I assume you pose this question in the proposed situation I described 
where placement is a repo under compute. I expect the review team to be 
nova-core as a start with consideration for new additions or removals 
based on our usual process of discussion and consensus as a group. I 
expect there to be members of one group who are not members of the other 
group. But all are members of the compute project and have shared 
interest in achieving shared goals for operators and users.

> What do you think those folks are more interested in working on than the
> things you listed as needing to be done to support the nova use cases?

I'm not thinking of anything specific here. At a high level, I don't see 
how separating into two separate groups under separate leadership helps 
us deliver the listed things for operators and users. I tend to think 
that a unified group will be more successful at that.

> What can they do to reassure you that they will work on the items
> nova needs, regardless of the governance structure?

If they were separate groups, I don't see why the leadership of 
placement would necessarily share goals and priorities with compute. I 
think that is why it's much more difficult to get things done with two 
separate groups, in general.

I want to reiterate again that the only thing I care about here is 
delivering functionality that operators and users need. vGPUs, in 
particular, has been highly sought after at a community-wide level, not 
just from the compute community. I want to deliver the features that 
people are depending on and IMHO, being a unified group helps that. I 
don't see how being two separate groups helps that.

-melanie