[Telemetry][TC]Telemetry status

Tobias Urdin tobias.urdin at binero.se
Thu Dec 19 10:41:54 UTC 2019

I can  volounteer to spend time on Ceilomter and Gnocchi while I have 
some mimimal knowledge on Ceilomter
and pretty much none on the Gnocchi codebase I would like to see the 
project continued.

Another thing would be if Gnocchi should be moved back or if I should 
somehow get in contact with the former
Gnocchi maintainers and see if we can get access to GitHub?

Best regards

On 12/19/19 2:46 AM, Rong Zhu wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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)
>     >>>
>     >>
>     >
>     >
> -- 
> Thanks,
> Rong Zhu

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-discuss/attachments/20191219/ef8b9cd6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list