Open Stack

Yeah, there's definitely a big difference between DBaaS and MySQLaaS, though right now technically RedDwarf *is* the latter with future plans towards the former. The latter is immensely technically complicated and does warrant pause on the typical incubation question: "Is the architecture likely to be massively refactored in the near-ish future?"

I also like Monty's points about installing OpenStack in terms of OpenStack, and providing the common tools developers need. I also can't help but see the explosion of "AWS has this so OpenStack should too" projects and wonder whether that's a good model or not, but maybe that's just me.

I appreciate the discussion so far,


-          Gabriel

From: Mark Washenberger [mailto:mark.washenberger at markwash.net]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 2:57 PM
To: openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] Reddwarf application for incubation

Ah, good to know. Thanks!

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Michael Basnight <mbasnight at gmail.com<mailto:mbasnight at gmail.com>> wrote:
I'd like to point out that reddwarf is meant to be seen as a database/datastore as a service, not hosted MySQL as a service. We are initially targeting MySQL due to its lion share of interest.

Being at the percona conference this week, we have gotten a ton of support/ feedback from implementers of solutions that fit on top of MySQL, and there is interest by companies such as tungsten, galera, percona, and Maria to help us define what it means to have a clusterable database solution, as well as a generic replication service. But by no means do we want to imply that this is a MySQL solution. We are trying to make a generic, operator configurable service that allows an installer to define what database as a service means for them.  We aren't picking a technology, persay, but instead enabling said technologies to reside in the common ecosystem.


Sent from my digital shackles

On Apr 25, 2013, at 2:39 PM, Mark Washenberger <mark.washenberger at markwash.net<mailto:mark.washenberger at markwash.net>> wrote:
I'm in much the same boat as Gabriel.

I would also ask, does it adversely affect other DBaaS projects built on top of OpenStack for RedDwarf to be part of OpenStack? In other core projects, we tend to use drivers to expose alternate implementations to try to be inclusive, does RedDwarf take a similar approach? What about other DBaaS projects that don't work principally through a MySQL interface? Please correct me if I'm wildly mistaken about RedDwarf's implementation.

On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Gabriel Hurley <Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com<mailto:Gabriel.Hurley at nebula.com>> wrote:
I totally agree that the application deserves consideration by the TC.

Throwing thoughts out there:

RedDwarf strikes me as a project that is an important part of the OpenStack ecosystem, has significant value and the potential for significant adoption, yet perhaps is not appropriate for the scope of OpenStack proper...

Since we're talking about Integrated Release and not "Core" doesn't it ultimately comes down to "is RedDwarf of sufficient value and significance to justify the allocation of the limited resources of CI, Docs, Release Management, summit time, etc.?" I have little doubt that RedDwarf is capable of matching the OpenStack release process and their code mostly looks sane. So this is more about whether this is an appropriate allocation of priority and impact on the ecosystem.

I don't know that I have any answers here, but those are the ideas I'm ruminating on.

    - Gabriel

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monty Taylor [mailto:mordred at inaugust.com<mailto:mordred at inaugust.com>]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:40 AM
> To: openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-tc at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-tc] Reddwarf application for incubation
>
> I do not believe that we are waiting on anything from the BoD at the
> moment. The outcome of the IncUp joint subcommittee was to affirm the
> TC's power and oversight over deciding what goes into the Integrated
> Release. The committee, and then subsequently the TC and the BoD all were
> on board with that outcome.
>
> Effectively, this means that the responsibility for deciding the scope of the
> OpenStack Integrated Release falls on our shoulders as the technical
> leadership of the project. I think that's great.
>
> That said, it's entirely possible that we, as the TC, could develop a set of
> guidelines describing what we think OpenStack is and isn't ...
> but I don't think that's particularly necessary. OpenStack is what we say it is,
> and further its scope is the scope of the things that the community of
> participants show up to work on.
>
> I see no reason to not consider the reddwarf application on Tuesday.
>
> I will say, however, that given summit sessions, reddwarf is almost certainly
> going to need to change its name...
>
> On 04/25/2013 12:55 AM, John Dickinson wrote:
> > AFAIK, we have yet to receive any direction from the OpenStack BoD on
> > the question of the scope of OpenStack. As such, especially with
> > somethink like Red Dwarf which appears to be completely built on top
> > of existing OpenStack projects, should we wait to consider the
> > application?
> >
> > Perhaps having somewhat of a backup in incubation considerations will
> > put some pressure on the BoD to more quickly answer the "what is
> > OpenStack" question.
> >
> > --John
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Apr 22, 2013, at 5:16 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org<mailto:thierry at openstack.org>>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Michael Basnight wrote:
> >>> The following wiki page has the Reddwarf database as a service
> >>> application for incubation. Thank you for your consideration!
> >>>
> >>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/ReddwarfAppliesForIncubation
> >>
> >> Hi!
> >>
> >> I'd like to give more time for the Technical Committee members to
> >> recover from the Summit and look into this, so we should consider
> >> this application at the meeting next week (April 30).
> >>
> >> In the mean time, could you repost your application for incubation
> >> link to the openstack-dev ML ASAP, so that it can openly be discussed
> >> there ?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> -- Thierry Carrez (ttx) Chair, OpenStack Technical Committee
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________ OpenStack-
> TC mailing
> >> list OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org>
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-
> TC mailing
> > list OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org>
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-TC mailing list
> OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-TC at lists.openstack.org>
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-tc



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

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-tc/attachments/20130425/bad02a73/attachment-0001.html>