Open Stack

On 04/26/2013 10:47 AM, Michael Basnight wrote:
> 
> On Apr 26, 2013, at 3:02 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 2013-04-25 at 17:31 -0400, Monty Taylor wrote:
>>> For me, I think that RedDwarf is a good fit for us, and I see it
>>> as an essential part of a cloud offering. I'm not sure about
>>> where it falls in the IaaS/PaaS split, and I have to be honest I
>>> don't care, because I don't think that a user of a cloud ever
>>> says "today I want to use some IaaS!"
>> 
>> That's where I'm at too, I think.
>> 
>> To the point that such services should be based on Heat and that
>> there should be a framework for building similar services - that's
>> my instinct too and if there's general agreement on that point, I'd
>> be wary of RedDwarf entering Incubation without progress being made
>> in that direction.
>> 
>> I mean, who knows - if someone came along with a new project to 
>> implement such a generic framework, I think we'd want to incubate
>> *that* project and encourage RedDwarf to port to it. I don't see
>> why we should decide now that RedDwarf will be the basis that
>> generic framework.
> 
> Funny you mention that. We actually began with reddwarf being a
> generic PaaS project and were told by multiple people in the
> community to focus instead on database as a service, and not try to
> tackle PaaS. IIRC some issues around it were 1) do the
> implementations of said PaaS project live _in_ the skeleton, 2) How
> would a generic api look for PaaS 3) its too big a concept to focus
> on...

I believe I was one of the people who said to focus on DBaaS

> That being said, reddwarf _was_ built to be a PaaS product. 2 summits
> ago i used reddwarf to spin up a apache, nfs, and mysql node and put
> wordpress on them. If thats what you want, then we already have that.
> The code was designed in such a way that the DBaaS portion of
> reddwarf is in a very specific place, and the code that spins up /
> manages instances is separated.
> 
> So, we are both DBaaS and a first shot at a generic framework for
> PaaS for applications that need more than just basic instrumenting.
> Weve got it covered :) I originally wanted to lead what you are
> referring to Mark, and tried to drive this project as such, even
> though we focused on DBaaS.

I'm actually less interested in this as a generic PaaS on top of
Heat/OpenStack. That might be because I don't see DBaaS as a PaaS thing
at all, and also because I don't really want to go down that rathole at
the moment.

Databases are clearly something that people need for applications, and
that are hard to administer properly. PaaS solutions are a thing that
while useful to a set of people, does seem like a scope creep to me for
the project, and one where a general framework provided by us seems
premature.

Monty