Open Stack

On Apr 26, 2013, at 7:51 AM, Monty Taylor <mordred at inaugust.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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

Maybe ;)

> 
>> 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.

Fwiw, I agree with everything you say. If much prefer to work on reddwarf as a DBaaS, and if when the rathole opens we can port to it, or even use reddwarf as a skeleton. There is enough work getting the DB in P, so ya, I'm happy focusing on that :)