[Telemetry][TC]Telemetry status

Rong Zhu aaronzhu1121 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 19 01:41:49 UTC 2019

I just want to know any other guys from the thread want to as volunteers to
take over gnocchi?

About Monasca, we discuss a lot in Shanghai, if users already use monasca,
as Lingxian mentioned ceilometer has already support publish to monasca.
but I think most of the user didn't use monasca, as a community you can
just say use monasca, but for company want to use in production, add a
component and the depends extra tools would be very very difficult, this
will need many many resources to do the things.

Tobias Urdin <tobias.urdin at binero.se>于2019年12月18日 周三18:00写道:

> https://github.com/gnocchixyz/gnocchi/issues/1049#issuecomment-555768072
> On 12/18/19 10:15 AM, Tobias Urdin wrote:
> > As an operator I second pretty much everything Samsaid, using
> > ceilometer-api never really worked without hand holding all the time.
> > We migrated over to Gnocchi as that was "the way forward" from the
> > Telemetry team and it has worked great.
> >
> > Gnocchi has a learning curve but after that it has been running
> > flawlessly even at a larger scale, just introduced more workers and
> > everything is set.
> >
> > I think the long term plan from the Telemetry team was to move out any
> > storage abstraction and cultivate ceilometer to a single focus area
> around
> > collecting metrics. Moving any API, transformations, storage etc to
> > another service.
> >
> > I think it's said to see Gnocchi, the actual solutions to the problem,
> > being unmaintained and out of the OpenStack developer ecosystem. I
> > assume there
> > is a cost to bringing it back in after it was moved out but maybe it's
> > something that is needed?
> >
> > While I don't have a deep understand in Gnocchi I would have no choice
> > but to try to spend more time learning it and fixing any issues that we
> > might
> > see since at this point we can't live without it, as our billing
> > providers supports the Gnocchi API, we using Heat with Gnocchi and Aodh
> > to autoscale etc.
> >
> > As a final note; thanks for bringing back the cpu_util metric, means I
> > can drop the ugly customized code that was required to bring that metric
> > back while
> > it was removed :)
> >
> > Best regards
> > Tobias
> >
> > On 12/18/19 5:39 AM, Sam Morrison wrote:
> >>> On 17 Dec 2019, at 10:14 pm, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Zane Bitter wrote:
> >>>> On 15/12/19 10:20 pm, Rong Zhu wrote:
> >>>>> 1.Add Ceilometer API back
> >>>>>        Since Gnocchi is out of OpenStack and is unmaintained, we
> need to add Ceilometer API back again.
> >>>> This is concerning because even the people who wrote it don't
> consider it adequate to the job. That inadequacy has been the source of
> significant reputational damage to OpenStack in the past, and many folks
> (me included) are anxious to avoid a repeat.
> >>> Yes this concerns me too, and even if we workaround the issue by
> adding Ceilo API back, I'd like to have a long-term plan to solve this
> issue. It seems there are several options on the table (including
> integrating Monasca and Ceilometer into a single stack, and other big-bang
> replacements) but it's never a one-for-one comparison as the solutions seem
> to address slightly disjoint problem spaces.
> >>>
> >>> I'd like to hear from more Ceilometer users. What are they using
> Ceilometer for, and what long-term plans would be acceptable. There is a
> trade-off between adopting short-term workarounds that reintroduce
> performance issues vs. undergoing a complex migration to the "right" way of
> fixing this. Like for example there is little point in pushing
> Monasca/Ceilometer stack integration if most users say, like Catalyst Cloud
> seems to say, that they would rather have a slow performing Ceilometer API
> back.
> >> Nectar Cloud has been a ceilometer user from the early days. Well we
> tried to be and couldn’t use it as ceilometer api and mongo db just didn’t
> work at our scale. Gnocchi solved all these issues for us and we use
> ceilometer/aodh/gnocchi happily in production for several years now.
> >> If telemetry project is going down the path of the old days it will
> mean we will either drop ceilometer all together and look at alternative
> solutions like monasca or Prometheus etc. I just can’t see how the old
> architecture of ceilometer is ever going to be usable.
> >>
> >> If there is some confidence that gnocchi publisher will be supported in
> the future we would keep using gnocchi and just maintain it ourselves. It’s
> an open source project and I was hoping the openstack community could keep
> it going. We’d be happy to help maintain it at least.
> >>
> >> We use ceilometer/gnocchi to collect and store all metrics from
> openstack services. We have also written some custom pollsters and gnocchi
> is quite flexible here to allow this. With these metrics we build reports
> for our users, our operators, our funders (the government)
> >>
> >>
> >> Please reconsider your direction much like adding cpu_util back in
> (thank you for this!)
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Sam
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>> Telemetry is part of the TC "Approved Release" that is eligible for
> the trademark program; I think at a minimum the TC will want to remove the
> resurrected Ceilometer API from the "designated sections" that users are
> required to run to participate in any trademark program that includes the
> functionality in question. But I think that we should explore other ways of
> reducing the chance of anyone confusing this for a viable way of building a
> cloud, including possibly changing the name (Antediluvian API?) and having
> this part of the stack live outside of the official OpenStack project.
> >>> Legacy API?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Thierry Carrez (ttx)
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> --
Rong Zhu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20191219/293e7877/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list