[Openstack-operators] What would you like in Pike?

Tim Bell Tim.Bell at cern.ch
Fri Jan 20 06:28:56 UTC 2017 

Blair,

Sure.

I’d also be happy for a second volunteer to share it with so that we get a rounded perspective, it is important that we don’t get too influenced by one organisation’s use cases.

Tim

From: Blair Bethwaite <blair.bethwaite at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 19 January 2017 at 20:24
To: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
Cc: "matt at mattjarvis.org.uk" <matt at mattjarvis.org.uk>, openstack-operators <openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] What would you like in Pike?

Hi Tim,

We did wonder in last week's meeting whether quota management and nested project support (particularly which flows are most important) would be a good session for the Boston Forum...? Would you be willing to lead such a discussion?

Cheers,

On 19 January 2017 at 19:59, Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch<mailto:Tim.Bell at cern.ch>> wrote:

On 18 Jan 2017, at 23:20, Matt Jarvis <matt at mattjarvis.org.uk<mailto:matt at mattjarvis.org.uk>> wrote:

I think one of the problems we're seeing now is that a lot of operators have actually already scratched some of these missing functionality itches like quota management and project nesting by handling those scenarios in external management systems. I know we certainly did at DataCentred. That probably means these things don't surface enough to upstream as requirements, whereas for new users who aren't necessarily in the loop with community communication they may well be creating friction to adoption.


For the quota management, I think the first discussions were in the Hong Kong summit around the Boson project and this has moved backwards and forwards between services, libraries and improving the code. While the user need is relatively simple to state, these are not simple problems to solve so it is often difficult for the items to get to the priority lists.

One of the difficulties we have found is that we could get staff for a project such as quota management for a short period (e.g. 1 year). However, from the initial specification to code acceptance is often an extended period so these sort of changes can get stalled but the people contributing need to show results for their work (such as a thesis).

From the scientific working group discussions, the quota and nesting discussions have come up regularly so the requirements are still there.

Tim


On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:06 PM, Sam Morrison <sorrison at gmail.com<mailto:sorrison at gmail.com>> wrote:
I would love it if all the projects policy.json was actually usable. Too many times the policy.json isn’t the only place where authN happens with lots of hard coded is_admin etc.

Just the ability to to have a certain role to a certain thing would be amazing. It makes it really hard to have read only users to generate reports with that we can show our funders how much people use our openstack cloud.

Cheers,
Sam
(non-enterprise)



On 18 Jan 2017, at 6:10 am, Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com<mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>> wrote:

Well said, as a consequence of this thread being on the mailing list, I hope that we can get all operators, end-users, and app-developers to respond. If you are aware of folks who do not fall under the "enterprise" label please encourage them directly to respond; I would encourage everyone to do the same.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Silence Dogood <matt at nycresistor.com<mailto:matt at nycresistor.com>> wrote:
I can see a huge problem with your contributing operators... all of them are enterprise.

enterprise needs are radically different from small to medium deployers who openstack has traditionally failed to work well for.

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 12:47 PM, Piet Kruithof <pkruithofjr at gmail.com<mailto:pkruithofjr at gmail.com>> wrote:
Sorry for the late reply, but wanted to add a few things.

OpenStack UX did suggest to the foundation that the community needs a second survey that focuses exclusively on operators.  The rationale was that the user survey is primarily focused on marketing data and there isn't really a ton of space for additional questions that focuses exclusively on operators. We also recommended a second survey called a MaxDiff study that enabled operators to identify areas of improvement and also rate them in order of importance including distance.

There is also an etherpad that asked operators three priorities for OpenStack:

https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-openstackux-enterprise-goals

It was distributed about a year ago, so I'm not sure how much of it was relevant.  The list does include responses from folks at TWC, Walmart, Pacific Northwest Labs, BestBuy, Comcast, NTTi3 and the US government. It might be a good place for the group to add their own improvements as well as "+" other peoples suggestions.

There is also a list of studies that have been conducted with operators on behalf of the community. The study included quotas, deployment and information needs. Note that the information needs study extended beyond docs to things like the need to easily google solutions and the need for SMEs.

Hope this is helpful.

Piet

___
OPENSTACK USER EXPERIENCE STATUS
The goal of this presentation is to provide an overview of research that was conducted on behalf of the OpenStack community.  All of the studies conducted on behalf of the OpenStack community were included in this presentation.

Why this research matters:
Consistency across projects has been identified as an issue in the user survey.

Study design:
This usability study, conducted at the OpenStack Austin Summit, observed 10 operators as they attempted to perform standard tasks in the OpenStack client.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1hZYCOADJ1gXiFHT1ahwv8-tDIQCSingu7zqSMbKFZ_Y/edit#slide=id.p



___
USER RESEARCH RESULTS: SEARCHLIGHT/HORIZON INTEGRATION
Why this research matters:
The Searchlight plug-in for Horizon aims to provide a consistent search API across OpenStack resources. To validate its suitability and ease of use, we evaluated it with cloud operators who use Horizon in their role.

Study design:
Five operators performed tasks that explored Searchlight’s filters, full-text capability, and multi-term search.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1TfF2sm98Iha-bNwBJrCTCp6k49zde1Z8I9Qthx1moIM/edit?usp=sharing



___
CLOUD OPERATOR INTERVIEWS: QUOTA MANAGEMENT AT PRODUCTION SCALE
Why this research matters:
The study was initiated following operator feedback identifying quotas as a challenge to manage at scale.

Study design:
One-on-one interviews with cloud operators sought to understand their methods for managing quotas at production scale.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1J6-8MwUGGOwy6-A_w1EaQcZQ1Bq2YWeB-kw4vCFxbwM/edit



___
CLOUD OPERATOR INTERVIEWS: INFORMATION NEEDS
Why this research matters:
Documentation has been consistently identified as an issue by operators during the user survey.  However, we wanted to understand the entire workflow associated with identifying and consuming information to resolve issues associated with operating production clouds.

Study design:
This research consisted of interviews with seven cloud operators from different industries with varying levels of experience to determine how they find solutions to problems that arise.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1LKxQx4Or4qOBwPQbt4jAZncGCLlk_Ez8ZRB_bGp19JU/edit?usp=sharing



___
OPERATOR INTERVIEWS: DEPLOYMENT AT PRODUCTION
Why this research matters:
Deployment has been consistently identified as an issue by operators during the user survey and impacts both adoption and operations of OpenStack.  We wanted to do a deep dive with operators to identify the specific issues impacting deployment.

Study design:
A series of 1:1 interviews that included included discussions around organizations, tools, workflows and pain points associated with deploying OpenStack.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/14UerMR4HrXKP_0NE_C-WJ16YQFzgetL1Tmym9FNFzpY/edit?usp=sharing


___
OPERATOR USABILITY: OPENSTACKCLIENT
Why this research matters:
Consistency across projects has been identified as an issue in the user survey.

Study design:
This usability study, conducted at the OpenStack Austin Summit, observed 10 operators as they attempted to perform standard tasks in the OpenStack client.

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1cBUJuLL9s7JQppVlDBBJMrNNpfqwdkHyfZFuwY6lNgM/edit#slide=id.g1a8df2eaf2_1_0










On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:07 AM, Jonathan Proulx <jon at csail.mit.edu<mailto:jon at csail.mit.edu>> wrote:

What Tim said :)

my ordering:

1) Preemptable Instances -- this would be huge and life changing I'd
   give up any other improvements to get this.

2) Deeper utilization of nested projects -- mostly we find ways to
   mange with out this but it would be great to have.

   A) to allow research groups (our internal fiscal/administrative
   divisions) to sub divide quota allocations accordinf to their own
   priorities on a self serve basis (provided proper RBAC configs)
   B) to answer show back questions more easily.  Currently with flat
   projects individual research groups have multiple openstack
   projects, by convention we mange to usually be able to aggregaet
   them in reporting, but deing able to show susage by a parent and
   all it 's childeren woudl be very useful

3) Quota improvements -- this is important but we've learned to deal
   with it

-Jon

On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 10:10:40AM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
:There are a couple of items which have not been able to make it to the top priority for recent releases which would greatly simplify our day to day work with the users and make the cloud more flexible. The background use cases are described in https://openstack-in-production.blogspot.fr/2016/04/resource-management-at-cern.html
:
:
:-          Quota management improvements
:
:o    Manual interventions are often required to sync the current usage with the OpenStack view
:
:o    Nested projects are now in Keystone but is limited support in other projects for the end user benefit, such as delegation of quota for sub-projects
:
:-          Nova pre-emptible instances  (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/104883/) to give spot market functionality
:
:o    We want to run our cloud at near 100% utilisation but this requires rapid ejection of lower priority VMs
:
:That having been said, I also fully support key priorities currently being worked on such as cells v2 and placement.
:
:Tim
:
:From: Melvin Hillsman <mrhillsman at gmail.com<mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>>
:Date: Friday, 13 January 2017 at 02:30
:To: openstack-operators <openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>>
:Subject: [Openstack-operators] What would you like in Pike?
:
:Hey everyone,
:
:I am hoping to get a dialogue started to gain some insight around things Operators, Application Developers, and End Users would like to see happen in Pike. If you had a dedicated environment, dedicated team, and freedom to choose how you deployed, new features, older features, enhancements, etc, and were not required to deal with customer/client tickets, calls, and maintenances, could keep a good feedback loop between your team and the upstream community of any project, what would like to make happen or work on hoping the next release of OpenStack had/included/changed/enhanced/removed…?
:
:Kind regards,
:--
:Melvin Hillsman
:
:Ops Technical Lead
:OpenStack Innovation Center
:
:
:
:mrhillsman at gmail.com<mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com><mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com<mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>>
:phone: (210) 312-1267<tel:%28210%29%20312-1267>
:mobile: (210) 413-1659<tel:%28210%29%20413-1659>
:Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command
:
:http://osic.org<http://osic.org/>
:
:

:_______________________________________________
:OpenStack-operators mailing list
:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
:http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


--

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



--
Pieter C Kruithof Jr, MS, CPE
PTL, OpenStack UX project

http://www.linkedin.com/in/pkruithofjr

512 576-2844<tel:(512)%20576-2844>


This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the addressee(s) named herein. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its attachments.

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



--
Kind regards,

Melvin Hillsman
Ops Technical Lead
OpenStack Innovation Center

mrhillsman at gmail.com<mailto:mrhillsman at gmail.com>
phone: (210) 312-1267<tel:(210)%20312-1267>
mobile: (210) 413-1659<tel:(210)%20413-1659>
http://osic.org<http://osic.org/>

Learner | Ideation | Belief | Responsibility | Command
_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators



--
Cheers,
~Blairo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20170120/4f2e2390/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list