I wish we can make a decision during this meeting. Is it confirmed for Friday 9am pacific?
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/w7y5qcdvq9i36757 to >> 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
