Open Stack

@Rocky:

I agree that we could look at what these initiatives are currently
targeting and defining as reference architectures as a starting point.  I
believe that even if these teams work on building out RAs, we should keep
in touch with them since we could gleam insights that play into the "2-3
year architecture/use case" discussion that we may be having.
Unfortunately, I don't think either group is far enough along in the
process to provide feedback during this mid-cycle meetup.  We should
definitely consider going through their findings at our next meetup.

By the way, I would be happy to help compile the information if there is
interest in covering what some of these other WGs are planning for 2015.

As a side-note, I have put my name on the list to help write some of the
user reference architectures in WTE (although I don't know if I will be
taken up on the offer yet) and I also recently joined the HA Guide Update
team.

@Roland:
I agree that it will be a balancing act.  If the RA is defined as "ready to
operate" (for a very specific combination) then the burden of delivering
the necessary variants will probably be very significant.  These would be
very meaningful to organization deploying the exact combination but
relevance would be minimal to the large part of the market.

On the other hand, if we build something too "high-level" then it might be
relegated to being a good read only for basic/introductory level of
understanding.

I like the approach you mentioned about focusing on attributes needed for
cloud consumption as the theme for a particular reference architecture
might be the right "level" of broadness/specificity to target (e.g. HA
OpenStack Clouds, Federated Clouds, Considerations for providing multiple
service levels within a cloud, etc.)  We can discuss our definition of "RA"
at some point and then see how it aligns with actual initiatives that are
in-flight.

Thanks,
Shamail


On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Roland Chan <roland at aptira.com> wrote:

> An architecture that is "ready to operate" could be one of a fairly large
> number of valid combinations of components, which I think dilutes the value
> of the reference architecture(s) significantly.
>
> In my view the trick here will be to define the boundaries of the
> reference architecture such that it can plug into the various ancillary
> components required to make it operable. That definition should be based on
> capability, starting with the OpenStack core definition presumably, but
> then what should be included?
>
> - HA
> - Which of the integrated capabilities outside of defcore should go in?
> Perhaps none is the simplest answer, but not necessarily a useful one for
> consumers of the RA. Neutron? Horizon?
>
> I would specifically exclude:
>
> - deployment, beyond the simplest goal of getting the reference
> architecture running
> - monitoring
> - any other lifecycle management capabilities
>
> on the grounds that there are too many types of solutions to fit within
> the concept of a reference architecture, and also to avoid descending into
> the rabbit-hole of individual preferences. The nascent "Operations Project"
> aims to provide options in the key areas, and I would prefer to leave it to
> them and anyone else tackling specific use cases.
>
> ​​
> Roland
>
>
>
> On 20 January 2015 at 08:51, Rochelle Grober <rochelle.grober at huawei.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Shamail [mailto:itzshamail at gmail.com], Monday, January 19, 2015 12:51 PM
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Rocky,
>>
>> I changed the topic to separate the voting from the RA topic that you
>> mentioned.  I think it's a good idea but I would be glad to share a "user
>> reference architecture" initiative that the WTE (Win The Enterprise) WG is
>> planning to work on ASAP.  This concept is slightly different from what you
>> described below since these reference architectures will be driven by
>> customer deployment examples versus prescribed architectures given scale or
>> projects.  I'd be interested in determining whether the need for both
>> exists or whether one (or the other) is a superset.
>>
>> [Rockyg] I suspect that both the WTE and the operators will have
>> architectures that dovetail, as the operators are often implementing the
>> needs of their organizations.  I would think that we could up with good
>> compromises that reflect both the WTE use cases and the Dev-Ops common
>> implementations.  The cool and key thing here is that, the groups come up
>> with a reference architecture which then makes it much easier to iterate to
>> what the individual user wants/needs.
>>
>> Sounds like the discussion could be fun and productive.
>> --Rocky
>>
>>
>>
>> Happy to discuss further when we meet in person.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shamail
>>
>> > On Jan 19, 2015, at 3:39 PM, Rochelle Grober <
>> rochelle.grober at huawei.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I believe Rob Hirschfeld will be in attendance so, Rob (and I if he
>> wants me) can cover the DefCore and Refstack session.  Rob is certainly the
>> expert on DefCore.
>> >
>> > I'd also like to propose a session on defining/finding a project
>> manager to start creating some reference architectures with tested
>> installs.  Right now there is a discussion on the Operators' list on a
>> small installation, 3-5 nodes, with HA.  This could be a fine first
>> reference architecture with all the code and docs to make it similar (or
>> better) to install than devstack.  This is also a good architecture for
>> prospective users for prototyping, testing, or small business
>> installation.  Spec'ing this out during the summit, or at least getting a
>> good start, along with a volunteer project manager, would be a very
>> worthwhile endeavor for the meetup.
>> >
>> > --Rocky
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: sean roberts [mailto:seanroberts66 at gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2015 11:44 AM
>> > To: product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> > Subject: [Product] Time to Pick Topics
>> >
>> > It’s time to finalize the OpenStack Product Management topics for the
>> Kilo
>> > midcycle meeting
>> > <
>> http://sarob.com/2015/01/openstack-kilo-product-management-midcycle-coming-to-a-greater-understanding/
>> >
>> > coming
>> > up. We will need speakers for each topic. I want to get the best
>> authority
>> > possible for each talk, so locking down the topics is required. I will
>> need
>> > to get their commitment as soon as possible.
>> >
>> > More details on this post
>> >
>> http://sarob.com/2015/01/getting-ready-for-the-product-management-kilo-midcycle/
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > ~sean
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Product-wg mailing list
>> > Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Product-wg mailing list
>> > Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>> _______________________________________________
>> Product-wg mailing list
>> Product-wg at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/product-wg
>>
>
>