Hello, Adam,
Nice post. With KeyStone federation and multiple-signers, and plus OpenStack cascading, it would be helpful to delivery hybrid cloud for which both private cloud and public cloud are built upon OpenStack instances. It would be a great picture. Best Regards Chaoyi Hunag ( joehuang ) ________________________________ From: Adam Young [ayo...@redhat.com] Sent: 01 October 2014 4:25 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] [tc] Multi-clouds integration by OpenStack cascading On 09/30/2014 12:10 PM, John Griffith wrote: On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:35 AM, John Garbutt <j...@johngarbutt.com<mailto:j...@johngarbutt.com>> wrote: On 30 September 2014 14:04, joehuang <joehu...@huawei.com<mailto:joehu...@huawei.com>> wrote: > Hello, Dear TC and all, > > Large cloud operators prefer to deploy multiple OpenStack instances(as > different zones), rather than a single monolithic OpenStack instance because > of these reasons: > > 1) Multiple data centers distributed geographically; > 2) Multi-vendor business policy; > 3) Server nodes scale up modularized from 00's up to million; > 4) Fault and maintenance isolation between zones (only REST interface); > > At the same time, they also want to integrate these OpenStack instances into > one cloud. Instead of proprietary orchestration layer, they want to use > standard OpenStack framework for Northbound API compatibility with > HEAT/Horizon or other 3rd ecosystem apps. > > We call this pattern as "OpenStack Cascading", with proposal described by > [1][2]. PoC live demo video can be found[3][4]. > > Nova, Cinder, Neutron, Ceilometer and Glance (optional) are involved in the > OpenStack cascading. > > Kindly ask for cross program design summit session to discuss OpenStack > cascading and the contribution to Kilo. > > Kindly invite those who are interested in the OpenStack cascading to work > together and contribute it to OpenStack. > > (I applied for “other projects” track [5], but it would be better to have a > discussion as a formal cross program session, because many core programs are > involved ) > > > [1] wiki: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/OpenStack_cascading_solution > [2] PoC source code: https://github.com/stackforge/tricircle > [3] Live demo video at YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSU6PYRz5qY > [4] Live demo video at Youku (low quality, for those who can't access > YouTube)：http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNzkzNDQ3MDg4.html > [5] > http://www.mail-archive.com/openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org/msg36395.html There are etherpads for suggesting cross project sessions here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Summit/Planning https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-crossproject-summit-topics I am interested at comparing this to Nova's cells concept: http://docs.openstack.org/trunk/config-reference/content/section_compute-cells.html Cells basically scales out a single datacenter region by aggregating multiple child Nova installations with an API cell. Each child cell can be tested in isolation, via its own API, before joining it up to an API cell, that adds it into the region. Each cell logically has its own database and message queue, which helps get more independent failure domains. You can use cell level scheduling to restrict people or types of instances to particular subsets of the cloud, if required. It doesn't attempt to aggregate between regions, they are kept independent. Except, the usual assumption that you have a common identity between all regions. It also keeps a single Cinder, Glance, Neutron deployment per region. I'm starting on work to support a comparable mechanism to share data between Keystone servers. http://adam.younglogic.com/2014/09/multiple-signers/ It would be great to get some help hardening, testing, and building out more of the cells vision. I suspect we may form a new Nova subteam to trying and drive this work forward in kilo, if we can build up enough people wanting to work on improving cells. Thanks, John _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev Interesting idea, to be honest when TripleO was first announced what you have here is more along the lines of what I envisioned. It seems that this would have some interesting wins in terms of upgrades, migrations and scaling in general. Anyway, you should propose it to the etherpad as John G ( the other John G :) ) recommended, I'd love to dig deeper into this. Thanks, John _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto: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
