That's what I needed to know, thanks :) Michael
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:11 PM Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: > Another parallel is Manilla vs Swift. Both provides something like a share > for users to store files. > > The former is a multitenant api to provision non multitenant file shares. > The latter is a multitenant api to provide file sharing. > > Cue is a multitenant api to provision non multitenant queues. > Zaqar is an api for a multitenant queueing system. > > They are complimentary services. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ________________________________________ > From: Ryan Brown [rybr...@redhat.com] > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:38 AM > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Call for adoption (or exclusion?) > > On 04/20/2015 02:22 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: > > What's the difference between openstack/zaqar and stackforge/cue? > > Looking at the projects, it seems like zaqar is a ground-up > > implementation of a queueing system, while cue is a provisioning api for > > queuing systems that could include zaqar, but could also include rabbit, > > zmq, etc... > > > > If my understanding of the projects is correct, the latter is far more > > versatile, and more in line with similar openstack approaches like > > trove. Is there a use case nuance I'm not aware of that warrants > > duplicating efforts? Because if not, one of the two should be retired > > and development focused on the other. > > > > Note: I do not have a horse in this race. I just feel it's strange that > > we're building a thing that can be provisioned by the other thing. > > > > Well, with Trove you can provision databases, but the MagnetoDB project > still provides functionality that trove won't. > > > The Trove : MagnetoDB and Cue : Zaqar comparison fits well. > > Trove provisions one instance of X (some database) per tenant, where > MagnetoDB is one "instance" (collection of hosts to do database things) > that serves many tenants. > > Cue's goal is "I have a not-very-multitenant message bus (rabbit, or > whatever)" and makes that multitenant by provisioning one per tenant, > while Zaqar has a single install (of as many machines as needed) to > support messaging for all cloud tenants. This enables great stuff like > cross-tenant messaging, better physical resource utilization in > sparse-tenant cases, etc. > > As someone who wants to adopt Zaqar, I'd really like to see it continue > as a project because it provides things other message broker approaches > don't. > > -- > Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
