Fox, Kevin M wrote:
I think part of the problem is containers are mostly orthogonal to vms/bare
metal. Containers are a package for a single service. Multiple can run on a
single vm/bare metal host. Orchestration like Kubernetes comes in to turn a
pool of vm's/bare metal into a system that can easily run multiple containers.
Is the orthogonal part a problem because we have made it so or is it
just how it really is?
Brainstorming starts here:
Imagine a descriptor language like (which I stole from
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/210549 and modified):
---
components:
- label: frontend
count: 5
image: ubuntu_vanilla
requirements: high memory, low disk
stateless: true
- label: database
count: 3
image: ubuntu_vanilla
requirements: high memory, high disk
stateless: false
- label: memcache
count: 3
image: debian-squeeze
requirements: high memory, no disk
stateless: true
- label: zookeeper
count: 3
image: debian-squeeze
requirements: high memory, medium disk
stateless: false
backend: VM
networks:
- label: frontend_net
flavor: "public network"
associated_with:
- frontend
- label: database_net
flavor: high bandwidth
associated_with:
- database
- label: backend_net
flavor: high bandwidth and low latency
associated_with:
- zookeeper
- memchache
constraints:
- ref: container_only
params:
- frontend
- ref: no_colocated
params:
- database
- frontend
- ref: spread
params:
- database
- ref: no_colocated
params:
- database
- frontend
- ref: spread
params:
- memcache
- ref: spread
params:
- zookeeper
- ref: isolated_network
params:
- frontend_net
- database_net
- backend_net
...
Now nothing in the above is about container, or baremetal or vms,
(although a 'advanced' constraint can be that a component must be on a
container, and it must say be deployed via docker image XYZ...); instead
it's just about the constraints that a user has on there deployment and
the components associated with it. It can be left up to some consuming
project of that format to decide how to turn that desired description
into an actual description (aka a full expanding of that format into an
actual deployment plan), possibly say by optimizing for density (packing
as many things container) or optimizing for security (by using VMs) or
optimizing for performance (by using bare-metal).
So, rather then concern itself with supporting launching through a COE and through Nova,
which are two totally different code paths, OpenStack advanced services like Trove could
just use a Magnum COE and have a UI that asks which existing Magnum COE to launch in, or
alternately kick off the "Launch new Magnum COE" workflow in horizon, then
follow up with the Trove launch workflow. Trove then would support being able to use
containers, users could potentially pack more containers onto their vm's then just Trove,
and it still would work with both Bare Metal and VM's the same way since Magnum can
launch on either. I'm afraid supporting both containers and non container deployment with
Trove will be a large effort with very little code sharing. It may be easiest to have a
flag version where non container deployments are upgraded to containers then non
container support is dropped.
Sure trove seems like it would be a consumer of whatever interprets that
format, just like many other consumers could be (with the special case
that trove creates such a format on-behalf of some other consumer, aka
the trove user).
As for the app-catalog use case, the app-catalog project
(http://apps.openstack.org) is working on some of that.
Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Joshua Harlow [harlo...@fastmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2016 12:16 PM
To: Flavio Percoco; OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Cc: foundat...@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [OpenStack Foundation] [board][tc][all] One
Platform – Containers/Bare Metal? (Re: Board of Directors Meeting)
Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 11/04/16 18:05 +0000, Amrith Kumar wrote:
Adrian, thx for your detailed mail.
Yes, I was hopeful of a silver bullet and as we’ve discussed before (I
think it
was Vancouver), there’s likely no silver bullet in this area. After that
conversation, and some further experimentation, I found that even if
Trove had
access to a single Compute API, there were other significant
complications
further down the road, and I didn’t pursue the project further at the
time.
Adrian, Amrith,
I've spent enough time researching on this area during the last month
and my
conclusion is pretty much the above. There's no silver bullet in this
area and
I'd argue there shouldn't be one. Containers, bare metal and VMs differ
in such
a way (feature-wise) that it'd not be good, as far as deploying
databases goes,
for there to be one compute API. Containers allow for a different
deployment
architecture than VMs and so does bare metal.
Just some thoughts from me, but why focus on the
compute/container/baremetal API at all?
I'd almost like a way that just describes how my app should be
interconnected, what is required to get it going, and the features
and/or scheduling requirements for different parts of those app.
To me it feels like this isn't a compute API or really a heat API but
something else. Maybe it's closer to the docker compose API/template
format or something like it.
Perhaps such a thing needs a new project. I'm not sure, but it does feel
like that as developers we should be able to make such a thing that
still exposes the more advanced functionality of the underlying API so
that it can be used if really needed...
Maybe this is similar to an app-catalog, but that doesn't quite feel
like it's the right thing either so maybe somewhere in between...
IMHO I'd be nice to have a unified story around what this thing is, so
that we as a community can drive (as a single group) toward that, maybe
this is where the product working group can help and we as a developer
community can also try to unify behind...
P.S. name for project should be 'silver' related, ha.
-Josh
__________________________________________________________________________
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
