Alex, My thought is a PaaS would be implemented in a manner akin to BareMetal whereby an SPI would be provided to direct the allocation of resources (compute, storage, and network) to one or more PaaS instances. CloudStack would provide a common authentication and authorization layer allowing providers to provide a single set of credentials that would operate across IaaS and PaaS offerings, normalized monitoring and metrics collection, and some level UI embedding/theming to provide a consistent user experience between the two management console. The actual configuration of the PaaS for administrators and users would be delegated to the PaaS and associated system tools (e.g. Puppet, Chef, etc). In my opinion, attempting any deeper integration would create undue maintenance burden for the CloudStack project while compromising flexibility for operators -- without providing any additional value for either.
Thanks, -John On Dec 4, 2012, at 12:30 PM, Alex Heneveld <alex.henev...@cloudsoftcorp.com> wrote: > > John, > > +1 && thanks for the idea. > > I'm a big fan of OpenShift. I think that should definitely be a supported > deployment tech. We've done similar (lightweight isolation) with LXC at one > of our customers. > > So the question is whether things like this should be a native option? Or do > we aim to be general enough so cartridges/recipes/etc can all easily be > leveraged? I'm thinking the latter, then with a library of examples for > using OpenShift, Puppet, etc etc, which people can copy and tweak. > > --A > > > On 04/12/2012 11:13, John Burwell wrote: >> Alex, >> >> You may also want to take a look at OpenShift >> (https://github.com/openshift). Rather than VMs, they separate applications >> using SELinux controls which leads to far greater densities. This approach >> has allowed them to support a number of unique features (such as SSH access >> for each account) that are not available on other platforms. >> >> Thanks, >> -John >> >
