On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Sam Alba <sam.a...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wish we can make a decision during this meeting. Is it confirmed for > Friday 9am pacific? > Friday 9am Pacific seems to be the best time for this meeting. Can we use the #openstack-meeting channel for this? If not, then I can find another channel. For the agenda, I propose - going through https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service-apiand understand capabilities of all container technologies + would like the experts on each of those technologies to fill us in - go over the API proposal and see what we need to change. --Krishna > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Chuck Short <chuck.sh...@canonical.com> > wrote: > > Hi > > > > Has a decision happened when this meeting is going to take place, > assuming > > it is still taking place tomorrow. > > > > Regards > > chuck > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Krishna Raman <kra...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 11/18/2013 06:30 PM, Dan Smith wrote: > >> > >> Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody > >> give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate > >> service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is, > >> after all, just another hypervisor type, or so it seems. > >> > >> > >> But it's not just another hypervisor. If all you want from your > >> containers is lightweight VMs, then nova is a reasonable place to put > >> that (and it's there right now). If, however, you want to expose the > >> complex and flexible attributes of a container, such as being able to > >> overlap filesystems, have fine-grained control over what is shared with > >> the host OS, look at the processes within a container, etc, then nova > >> ends up needing quite a bit of change to support that. > >> > >> I think the overwhelming majority of folks in the room, after discussing > >> it, agreed that Nova is infrastructure and containers is more of a > >> platform thing. Making it a separate service lets us define a mechanism > >> to manage these that makes much more sense than treating them like VMs. > >> Using Nova to deploy VMs that run this service is the right approach, > >> IMHO. Clayton put it very well, I think: > >> > >> If the thing you want to deploy has a kernel, then you need Nova. If > >> your thing runs on a kernel, you want $new_service_name. > >> > >> I agree. > >> > >> Note that this is just another service under the compute project (or > >> program, or whatever the correct terminology is this week). > >> > >> > >> The Compute program is correct. That is established terminology as > >> defined by the TC in the last cycle. > >> > >> So while > >> distinct from Nova in terms of code, development should be tightly > >> integrated until (and if at some point) it doesn't make sense. > >> > >> > >> And it may share a whole bunch of the code. > >> > >> Another way to put this: The API requirements people have for > >> containers include a number of features considered outside of the > >> current scope of Nova (short version: Nova's scope stops before going > >> *inside* the servers it creates, except file injection, which we plan to > >> remove anyway). That presents a problem. A new service is one possible > >> solution. > >> > >> My view of the outcome of the session was not "it *will* be a new > >> service". Instead, it was, "we *think* it should be a new service, but > >> let's do some more investigation to decide for sure". > >> > >> The action item from the session was to go off and come up with a > >> proposal for what a new service would look like. In particular, we > >> needed a proposal for what the API would look like. With that in hand, > >> we need to come back and ask the question again of whether a new service > >> is the right answer. > >> > >> I see 3 possible solutions here: > >> > >> 1) Expand the scope of Nova to include all of the things people want to > >> be able to do with containers. > >> > >> This is my least favorite option. Nova is already really big. We've > >> worked to split things out (Networking, Block Storage, Images) to keep > >> it under control. I don't think a significant increase in scope is a > >> smart move for Nova's future. > >> > >> 2) Declare containers as explicitly out of scope and start a new project > >> with its own API. > >> > >> That is what is being proposed here. > >> > >> 3) Some middle ground that is a variation of #2. Consider Ironic. The > >> idea is that Nova's API will still be used for basic provisioning, which > >> Nova will implement by talking to Ironic. However, there are a lot of > >> baremetal management things that don't fit in Nova at all, and those > >> only exist in Ironic's API. > >> > >> I wanted to mention this option for completeness, but I don't actually > >> think it's the right choice here. With Ironic you have a physical > >> resource (managed by Ironic), and then instances of an image running on > >> these physical resources (managed by Nova). > >> > >> With containers, there's a similar line. You have instances of > >> containers (managed either by Nova or the new service) running on > >> servers (managed by Nova). I think there is a good line for separating > >> concerns, with a container service on top of Nova. > >> > >> > >> Let's ask ourselves: How much overlap is there between the current > >> compute API and a proposed containers API? Effectively, what's the > >> diff? How much do we expect this diff to change in the coming years? > >> > >> The current diff demonstrates a significant clash with the current scope > >> of Nova. I also expect a lot of innovation around containers in the > >> next few years, which will result in wanting to do new cool things in > >> the API. I feel that all of this justifies a new API service to best > >> position ourselves for the long term. > >> > >> > >> +1 > >> > >> We need to come up with the API first before we decide if this is a new > >> service or just something that > >> needs to be added to Nova, > >> > >> How about we have all interested parties meet on IRC or conf. call and > >> discuss the suggested REST API, > >> open questions and architecture. > >> > >> If you are interested please add your name to the participant list on > >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service. > >> > >> I have also set up a doodle poll at http://doodle.com/w7y5qcdvq9i36757to > >> gather a times when a majority > >> of us are available to discuss on IRC. > >> > >> -- > >> Krishna Raman > >> > >> PS: Sorry if you see this email twice. I am having some issues with list > >> subscription. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Russell Bryant > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > -- > @sam_alba > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
