Adrian, Can we put hyper as a topic for this week's (Tomorrow) meeting? I want to have some discussion with you.
Thanks 2015-07-27 0:43 GMT-04:00 Adrian Otto <adrian.o...@rackspace.com>: > Peng, > > For the record, the Magnum team is not yet comfortable with this > proposal. This arrangement is not the way we think containers should be > integrated with OpenStack. It completely bypasses Nova, and offers no Bay > abstraction, so there is no user selectable choice of a COE (Container > Orchestration Engine). We advised that it would be smarter to build a nova > virt driver for Hyper, and integrate that with Magnum so that it could work > with all the different bay types. It also produces a situation where > operators can not effectively bill for the services that are in use by the > consumers, there is no sensible infrastructure layer capacity management > (scheduler), no encryption management solution for the communication > between k8s minions/nodes and the k8s master, and a number of other > weaknesses. I’m not convinced the single-tenant approach here makes sense. > > To be fair, the concept is interesting, and we are discussing how it > could be integrated with Magnum. It’s appropriate for experimentation, but > I would not characterize it as a “solution for cloud providers” for the > above reasons, and the callouts I mentioned here: > > http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-July/069940.html > > Positioning it that way is simply premature. I strongly suggest that you > attend the Magnum team meetings, and work through these concerns as we had > Hyper on the agenda last Tuesday, but you did not show up to discuss it. > The ML thread was confused by duplicate responses, which makes it rather > hard to follow. > > I think it’s a really bad idea to basically re-implement Nova in Hyper. > Your’e already re-implementing Docker in Hyper. With a scope that’s too > wide, you won’t be able to keep up with the rapid changes in these > projects, and anyone using them will be unable to use new features that > they would expect from Docker and Nova while you are busy copying all of > that functionality each time new features are added. I think there’s a > better approach available that does not require you to duplicate such a > wide range of functionality. I suggest we work together on this, and select > an approach that sets you up for success, and gives OpenStack could > operators what they need to build services on Hyper. > > Regards, > > Adrian > > On Jul 26, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Peng Zhao <p...@hyper.sh> wrote: > > Hi all, > I am glad to introduce the HyperStack project to you. > HyperStack is a native, multi-tenant CaaS solution built on top of > OpenStack. In terms of architecture, HyperStack = Bare-metal + Hyper + > Kubernetes + Cinder + Neutron. > HyperStack is different from Magnum in that HyperStack doesn't employ the > Bay concept. Instead, HyperStack pools all bare-metal servers into one > singe cluster. Due to the hypervisor nature in Hyper, different tenants' > applications are completely isolated (no shared kernel), thus co-exist > without security concerns in a same cluster. > Given this, HyperStack is a solution for public cloud providers who want > to offer the secure, multi-tenant CaaS. > Ref: > https://trello-attachments.s3.amazonaws.com/55545e127c7cbe0ec5b82f2b/1258x535/1c85a755dcb5e4a4147d37e6aa22fd40/upload_7_23_2015_at_11_00_41_AM.png > The next step is to present a working beta of HyperStack at Tokyo summit, > which we submitted a presentation: > https://www.openstack.org/summit/tokyo-2015/vote-for-speakers/Presentation/4030. > Please vote if you are interested. > In the future, we want to integrate HyperStack with Magnum and Nova to > make sure one OpenStack deployment can offer both IaaS and native CaaS > services. > Best, > Peng > ---------- Background > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Hyper is a hypervisor-agnostic Docker runtime. It allows to run Docker > images with any hypervisor (KVM, Xen, Vbox, ESX). Hyper is different from > the minimalist Linux distros like CoreOS by that Hyper runs on the physical > box and load the Docker images from the metal into the VM instance, in > which no guest OS is present. Instead, Hyper boots a minimalist kernel in > the VM to host the Docker images (Pod). > With this approach, Hyper is able to bring some encouraging results, > which are similar to container: > - 300ms to boot a new HyperVM instance with a pod of Docker images > - 20MB for min mem footprint of a HyperVM instance > - Immutable HyperVM, only kernel+images, serves as atomic unit (Pod) for > scheduling > - Immune from the shared kernel problem in LXC, isolated by VM > - Work seamlessly with OpenStack components, Neutron, Cinder, due to the > hypervisor nature > - BYOK, bring-your-own-kernel is somewhat mandatory for a public cloud > platform > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Thanks, Jay Lau (Guangya Liu)
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
