Open Stack

So, what you're looking for is basically the same old IT, but with an
API. I get that. For me, the point of this cloud thing is so that server
operators can make _reasonable_ guarantees, and application operators
can make use of them in an automated fashion.

If you start guaranteeing 4 and 5 nines for single VM's, you're right
back in the boat of spending a lot on server infrastructure even if your
users could live without it sometimes.

Compute hosts are going to go down. Networks are going to partition. It
is not actually expensive to deal with that at the application layer. In
fact when you know your business rules, you'll do a better job at doing
this efficiently than some blanket "replicate all the things" layer might.

I know, some clouds are just new ways to chop up these fancy 40 core
megaservers that everyone is shipping. I'm sure OpenStack can do it, but
I'm saying, I don't think OpenStack _should_ do it.

Excerpts from Adam Lawson's message of 2014-09-26 20:30:29 -0700:
> Generally speaking that's true when you have full control over how you
> deploy applications as a consumer. As a provider however, cloud resiliency
> is king and it's generally frowned upon to associate instances directly to
> the underlying physical hardware for any reason. It's good when instances
> can come and go as needed, but in a production context, a failed compute
> host shouldn't take down every instance hosted on it. Otherwise there is no
> real abstraction going on and the cloud loses immense value.
> On Sep 26, 2014 4:15 PM, "Clint Byrum" <clint at fewbar.com> wrote:
> 
> > Excerpts from Adam Lawson's message of 2014-09-26 14:43:40 -0700:
> > > Hello fellow stackers.
> > >
> > > I'm looking for discussions/plans re VM continuity.
> > >
> > > I.e. Protection for instances using ephemeral storage against host
> > failures
> > > or auto-failover capability for instances on hosts where the host suffers
> > > from an attitude problem?
> > >
> > > I know fail-overs are supported and I'm quite certain auto-fail-overs are
> > > possible in the event of a host failure (hosting instances not using
> > shared
> > > storage). I just can't find where this has been addressed/discussed.
> > >
> > > Someone help a brother out? ; )
> >
> > I'm sure some of that is possible, but it's a cloud, so why not do things
> > the cloud way?
> >
> > Spin up redundant bits in disparate availability zones. Replicate only
> > what must be replicated. Use volumes for DR only when replication would
> > be too expensive.
> >
> > Instances are cattle, not pets. Keep them alive just long enough to make
> > your profit.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mailing list:
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> > Post to     : openstack at lists.openstack.org
> > Unsubscribe :
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack
> >