Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Hi Vinod,

We prepared a design doc earlier.

>From your words it seems like the best way to proceed is to fork Apache
Mesos, show that it works well with liboffkv, then try to merge it back
into your master.

Removing all reference to ZooKeeper throughout the codebase is a good idea,
and we expect to get pretty close to that goal with our fork.

Since maintaining a fork is more work than sending through a contribution
to the existing maintainers; I'll need to review budget allocation and see
what's possible. We're also planning similar contributions to popular
official and unofficial Mesos ecosystem projects; and Kubernetes (+ its
popular official and unofficial ecosystem projects).

It may be that we contribute to Kubernetes first, assuming they're more
amenable to 'non-real-world tested' libraries; then get back to Mesos down
the track.

Watch this space!

Samuel Marks
Charity  | consultancy 
| open-source  | LinkedIn



On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 1:05 AM Vinod Kone  wrote:

> Hi Samuel,
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I think a design doc for how you
> would modularize the ZooKeeperStorage interface would be a good start.
> Regarding liboffkv based modules for contender and detector, a design doc
> would be good as well. But since those modules will be out of the tree,
> that's up to you. Once these modules get some real world usage by folks in
> the community (we can link them from the mesos website) and get battle
> tested, we can consider next steps. Hope that makes sense.
>
> Thanks again for your interest in contributing to the project.
>
> Vinod
>
> On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
> > Anything we can do to help expedite this? - We really want to contribute
> to
> > Mesos and its ecosystem. - It would be great to have them all decoupled
> > from any particular consensus and key/value store. - Some significant new
> > use-cases, IMHO, that will be facilitated by this.
> >
> > Samuel Marks
> > Charity  | consultancy <
> https://offscale.io>
> > | open-source  | LinkedIn
> > 
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:01 AM Samuel Marks 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hey was just a little confused as to if I'm waiting for your next
> > response
> > > or if you wanted me to respond…
> > >
> > > Besides leader election and network membership, ZooKeeper is also
> > utilized
> > > in some JNI code through ZooKeeperStorage. But I'm not sure if those
> JNI
> > > libraries are actually used.
> > >
> > > So if we could put all ZooKeeper-dependent functionality behind a
> module
> > > interface and implement a few liboffkv-based modules, would that
> suffice?
> > >
> > > What is the sort of timeframe for your end? - And are we waiting on
> you,
> > > or do you want us to prepare the contributions, send it through, then
> > await
> > > your review?
> > >
> > > PS: Happy to schedule a videoconference between our teams
> > >
> > > Samuel Marks
> > > Charity  | consultancy <
> > https://offscale.io>
> > > | open-source  | LinkedIn
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Ah yes I forgot, the other piece is network membership for the
> > replicated
> > >> log, through our zookeeper::Group related code. Is that what you're
> > >> referring to?
> > >>
> > >> We could put that behind a module interface as well.
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:10 PM Benjamin Mahler 
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > > Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in
> Mesos,
> > >> with
> > >> > > only leader election being customisable with modules. Your
> existing
> > >> > modular
> > >> > > functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache
> ZooKeeper.
> > >> >
> > >> > Can you clarify which other functionality you're referring to? Mesos
> > >> only
> > >> > relies on ZK for leader election and detection. We do have some
> > >> libraries
> > >> > available in the code for storing the registry in ZK but we do not
> > >> support
> > >> > that currently.
> > >> >
> > >> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02 PM Samuel Marks 
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos,
> > >> with
> > >> >> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
> > >> >> modular
> > >> >> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> We are ready and waiting to develop here.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has
> > been
> > >> >> [the prospect of]:
> > >> >>
> > >> >>- Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Vinod Kone]

Hi Samuel,

Sorry for the delay in responding to this. I think a design doc for how you
would modularize the ZooKeeperStorage interface would be a good start.
Regarding liboffkv based modules for contender and detector, a design doc
would be good as well. But since those modules will be out of the tree,
that's up to you. Once these modules get some real world usage by folks in
the community (we can link them from the mesos website) and get battle
tested, we can consider next steps. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks again for your interest in contributing to the project.

Vinod

On Sun, Jun 28, 2020 at 7:05 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Anything we can do to help expedite this? - We really want to contribute to
> Mesos and its ecosystem. - It would be great to have them all decoupled
> from any particular consensus and key/value store. - Some significant new
> use-cases, IMHO, that will be facilitated by this.
>
> Samuel Marks
> Charity  | consultancy 
> | open-source  | LinkedIn
> 
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:01 AM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
> > Hey was just a little confused as to if I'm waiting for your next
> response
> > or if you wanted me to respond…
> >
> > Besides leader election and network membership, ZooKeeper is also
> utilized
> > in some JNI code through ZooKeeperStorage. But I'm not sure if those JNI
> > libraries are actually used.
> >
> > So if we could put all ZooKeeper-dependent functionality behind a module
> > interface and implement a few liboffkv-based modules, would that suffice?
> >
> > What is the sort of timeframe for your end? - And are we waiting on you,
> > or do you want us to prepare the contributions, send it through, then
> await
> > your review?
> >
> > PS: Happy to schedule a videoconference between our teams
> >
> > Samuel Marks
> > Charity  | consultancy <
> https://offscale.io>
> > | open-source  | LinkedIn
> > 
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Ah yes I forgot, the other piece is network membership for the
> replicated
> >> log, through our zookeeper::Group related code. Is that what you're
> >> referring to?
> >>
> >> We could put that behind a module interface as well.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:10 PM Benjamin Mahler 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos,
> >> with
> >> > > only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
> >> > modular
> >> > > functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
> >> >
> >> > Can you clarify which other functionality you're referring to? Mesos
> >> only
> >> > relies on ZK for leader election and detection. We do have some
> >> libraries
> >> > available in the code for storing the registry in ZK but we do not
> >> support
> >> > that currently.
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02 PM Samuel Marks 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos,
> >> with
> >> >> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
> >> >> modular
> >> >> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
> >> >>
> >> >> We are ready and waiting to develop here.
> >> >>
> >> >> As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:
> >> >>
> >> >> The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has
> been
> >> >> [the prospect of]:
> >> >>
> >> >>- Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a very small
> >> >> number
> >> >>of nodes… potentially even down to 1 node so that it can 'compete'
> >> with
> >> >>Docker Compose.
> >> >>- Reducing the number of distributed systems that all do the same
> >> thing
> >> >>in a datacentre environment.
> >> >>   - Postgres has its own consensus, Docker—e.g, via Kubernetes or
> >> >>   Compose—has its own consensus, ZooKeeper has its own consensus,
> >> >> other
> >> >>   things like distributed filesystems… they too; have their own
> >> >> consensus.
> >> >>- The big sell from that first point is actually showing people
> how
> >> to
> >> >>run Mesos and use it for their regular day-to-day development,
> e.g.:
> >> >>1. Context switching when the one engineer is on multiple projects
> >> >>   2. …then use the same technology at scale.
> >> >>- The big sell from that second point is to reduce the network
> >> traffic,
> >> >>speed up each systems consensus—through all using the one
> system—and
> >> >>simplify analytics.
> >> >>
> >> >>This would be a big deal for your bigger clients, who can easily
> >> >>quantify what this network traffic costs, and what a reduction in
> >> >> network
> >> >>traffic with a corresponding increase in speed would mean.
> >> >>
> >> >>Eventually this 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Anything we can do to help expedite this? - We really want to contribute to
Mesos and its ecosystem. - It would be great to have them all decoupled
from any particular consensus and key/value store. - Some significant new
use-cases, IMHO, that will be facilitated by this.

Samuel Marks
Charity  | consultancy 
| open-source  | LinkedIn



On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:01 AM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Hey was just a little confused as to if I'm waiting for your next response
> or if you wanted me to respond…
>
> Besides leader election and network membership, ZooKeeper is also utilized
> in some JNI code through ZooKeeperStorage. But I'm not sure if those JNI
> libraries are actually used.
>
> So if we could put all ZooKeeper-dependent functionality behind a module
> interface and implement a few liboffkv-based modules, would that suffice?
>
> What is the sort of timeframe for your end? - And are we waiting on you,
> or do you want us to prepare the contributions, send it through, then await
> your review?
>
> PS: Happy to schedule a videoconference between our teams
>
> Samuel Marks
> Charity  | consultancy 
> | open-source  | LinkedIn
> 
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> wrote:
>
>> Ah yes I forgot, the other piece is network membership for the replicated
>> log, through our zookeeper::Group related code. Is that what you're
>> referring to?
>>
>> We could put that behind a module interface as well.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:10 PM Benjamin Mahler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos,
>> with
>> > > only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
>> > modular
>> > > functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
>> >
>> > Can you clarify which other functionality you're referring to? Mesos
>> only
>> > relies on ZK for leader election and detection. We do have some
>> libraries
>> > available in the code for storing the registry in ZK but we do not
>> support
>> > that currently.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02 PM Samuel Marks 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos,
>> with
>> >> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
>> >> modular
>> >> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
>> >>
>> >> We are ready and waiting to develop here.
>> >>
>> >> As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:
>> >>
>> >> The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has been
>> >> [the prospect of]:
>> >>
>> >>- Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a very small
>> >> number
>> >>of nodes… potentially even down to 1 node so that it can 'compete'
>> with
>> >>Docker Compose.
>> >>- Reducing the number of distributed systems that all do the same
>> thing
>> >>in a datacentre environment.
>> >>   - Postgres has its own consensus, Docker—e.g, via Kubernetes or
>> >>   Compose—has its own consensus, ZooKeeper has its own consensus,
>> >> other
>> >>   things like distributed filesystems… they too; have their own
>> >> consensus.
>> >>- The big sell from that first point is actually showing people how
>> to
>> >>run Mesos and use it for their regular day-to-day development, e.g.:
>> >>1. Context switching when the one engineer is on multiple projects
>> >>   2. …then use the same technology at scale.
>> >>- The big sell from that second point is to reduce the network
>> traffic,
>> >>speed up each systems consensus—through all using the one system—and
>> >>simplify analytics.
>> >>
>> >>This would be a big deal for your bigger clients, who can easily
>> >>quantify what this network traffic costs, and what a reduction in
>> >> network
>> >>traffic with a corresponding increase in speed would mean.
>> >>
>> >>Eventually this will mean that Ops people can tradeoff guarantees
>> for
>> >>speed (and vice-versa).
>> >>- Supporting ZooKeeper, Consul, and etcd is just the start.
>> >>- Supporting Mesos is just the start.
>> >>- We plan on adding more consensus-guaranteeing systems—maybe even
>> our
>> >>own Paxos and Raft—and adding this to systems in the Mesos ecosystem
>> >> like
>> >>Chronos, Marathon, and Aurora.
>> >>It is my understanding that a big part of Mesosphere's rebranding is
>> >>Kubernetes related.
>> >>
>> >> Recently—well, just before COVID19!—I spoke at the Sydney Kubernetes
>> >> Meetup
>> >> at Google. They too—including Google—were excited by the prospect of
>> >> removing etcd as a hard-dependency, and supporting all the different
>> ones
>> >> liboffkv supports.
>> >>
>> >> I have the budget, team, and expertise at the 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Hey was just a little confused as to if I'm waiting for your next response
or if you wanted me to respond…

Besides leader election and network membership, ZooKeeper is also utilized
in some JNI code through ZooKeeperStorage. But I'm not sure if those JNI
libraries are actually used.

So if we could put all ZooKeeper-dependent functionality behind a module
interface and implement a few liboffkv-based modules, would that suffice?

What is the sort of timeframe for your end? - And are we waiting on you, or
do you want us to prepare the contributions, send it through, then await
your review?

PS: Happy to schedule a videoconference between our teams

Samuel Marks
Charity  | consultancy 
| open-source  | LinkedIn



On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 11:12 AM Benjamin Mahler  wrote:

> Ah yes I forgot, the other piece is network membership for the replicated
> log, through our zookeeper::Group related code. Is that what you're
> referring to?
>
> We could put that behind a module interface as well.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:10 PM Benjamin Mahler 
> wrote:
>
> > > Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos,
> with
> > > only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
> > modular
> > > functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
> >
> > Can you clarify which other functionality you're referring to? Mesos only
> > relies on ZK for leader election and detection. We do have some libraries
> > available in the code for storing the registry in ZK but we do not
> support
> > that currently.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02 PM Samuel Marks 
> wrote:
> >
> >> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos, with
> >> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
> >> modular
> >> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
> >>
> >> We are ready and waiting to develop here.
> >>
> >> As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:
> >>
> >> The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has been
> >> [the prospect of]:
> >>
> >>- Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a very small
> >> number
> >>of nodes… potentially even down to 1 node so that it can 'compete'
> with
> >>Docker Compose.
> >>- Reducing the number of distributed systems that all do the same
> thing
> >>in a datacentre environment.
> >>   - Postgres has its own consensus, Docker—e.g, via Kubernetes or
> >>   Compose—has its own consensus, ZooKeeper has its own consensus,
> >> other
> >>   things like distributed filesystems… they too; have their own
> >> consensus.
> >>- The big sell from that first point is actually showing people how
> to
> >>run Mesos and use it for their regular day-to-day development, e.g.:
> >>1. Context switching when the one engineer is on multiple projects
> >>   2. …then use the same technology at scale.
> >>- The big sell from that second point is to reduce the network
> traffic,
> >>speed up each systems consensus—through all using the one system—and
> >>simplify analytics.
> >>
> >>This would be a big deal for your bigger clients, who can easily
> >>quantify what this network traffic costs, and what a reduction in
> >> network
> >>traffic with a corresponding increase in speed would mean.
> >>
> >>Eventually this will mean that Ops people can tradeoff guarantees for
> >>speed (and vice-versa).
> >>- Supporting ZooKeeper, Consul, and etcd is just the start.
> >>- Supporting Mesos is just the start.
> >>- We plan on adding more consensus-guaranteeing systems—maybe even
> our
> >>own Paxos and Raft—and adding this to systems in the Mesos ecosystem
> >> like
> >>Chronos, Marathon, and Aurora.
> >>It is my understanding that a big part of Mesosphere's rebranding is
> >>Kubernetes related.
> >>
> >> Recently—well, just before COVID19!—I spoke at the Sydney Kubernetes
> >> Meetup
> >> at Google. They too—including Google—were excited by the prospect of
> >> removing etcd as a hard-dependency, and supporting all the different
> ones
> >> liboffkv supports.
> >>
> >> I have the budget, team, and expertise at the ready to invest and
> >> contribute these changes. If there are certain design patterns and
> >> refactors you want us to commit to along the way, just say the word.
> >>
> >> Excitedly yours,
> >>
> >> Samuel Marks
> >> Charity  | consultancy <
> https://offscale.io
> >> >
> >> | open-source  | LinkedIn
> >> 
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:42 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > AndreiS just reminded me that we have module interfaces for the master
> >> > detector and contender:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

Ah yes I forgot, the other piece is network membership for the replicated
log, through our zookeeper::Group related code. Is that what you're
referring to?

We could put that behind a module interface as well.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 9:10 PM Benjamin Mahler  wrote:

> > Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos, with
> > only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
> modular
> > functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
>
> Can you clarify which other functionality you're referring to? Mesos only
> relies on ZK for leader election and detection. We do have some libraries
> available in the code for storing the registry in ZK but we do not support
> that currently.
>
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
>> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos, with
>> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
>> modular
>> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
>>
>> We are ready and waiting to develop here.
>>
>> As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:
>>
>> The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has been
>> [the prospect of]:
>>
>>- Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a very small
>> number
>>of nodes… potentially even down to 1 node so that it can 'compete' with
>>Docker Compose.
>>- Reducing the number of distributed systems that all do the same thing
>>in a datacentre environment.
>>   - Postgres has its own consensus, Docker—e.g, via Kubernetes or
>>   Compose—has its own consensus, ZooKeeper has its own consensus,
>> other
>>   things like distributed filesystems… they too; have their own
>> consensus.
>>- The big sell from that first point is actually showing people how to
>>run Mesos and use it for their regular day-to-day development, e.g.:
>>1. Context switching when the one engineer is on multiple projects
>>   2. …then use the same technology at scale.
>>- The big sell from that second point is to reduce the network traffic,
>>speed up each systems consensus—through all using the one system—and
>>simplify analytics.
>>
>>This would be a big deal for your bigger clients, who can easily
>>quantify what this network traffic costs, and what a reduction in
>> network
>>traffic with a corresponding increase in speed would mean.
>>
>>Eventually this will mean that Ops people can tradeoff guarantees for
>>speed (and vice-versa).
>>- Supporting ZooKeeper, Consul, and etcd is just the start.
>>- Supporting Mesos is just the start.
>>- We plan on adding more consensus-guaranteeing systems—maybe even our
>>own Paxos and Raft—and adding this to systems in the Mesos ecosystem
>> like
>>Chronos, Marathon, and Aurora.
>>It is my understanding that a big part of Mesosphere's rebranding is
>>Kubernetes related.
>>
>> Recently—well, just before COVID19!—I spoke at the Sydney Kubernetes
>> Meetup
>> at Google. They too—including Google—were excited by the prospect of
>> removing etcd as a hard-dependency, and supporting all the different ones
>> liboffkv supports.
>>
>> I have the budget, team, and expertise at the ready to invest and
>> contribute these changes. If there are certain design patterns and
>> refactors you want us to commit to along the way, just say the word.
>>
>> Excitedly yours,
>>
>> Samuel Marks
>> Charity  | consultancy > >
>> | open-source  | LinkedIn
>> 
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:42 AM Benjamin Mahler 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > AndreiS just reminded me that we have module interfaces for the master
>> > detector and contender:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/detector.hpp
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/contender.hpp
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/detector.hpp
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/contender.hpp
>> >
>> > These should allow you to implement the integration with your library,
>> we
>> > may need to adjust the interfaces a little, but this will let you get
>> what
>> > you need done without the burden on us to shepherd the work.
>> >
>> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:38 PM Samuel Marks 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Following on from the discussion on GitHub and here on the
>> mailing-list,
>> > > here is the proposal from me and my team:
>> > > --
>> > >
>> > > Choice of approach
>> > >
>> > > The “mediator” of every interaction with ZooKeeper in Mesos is the
>> > > ZooKeeper
>> > > class, declared in include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp.
>> > >
>> > > Of note are the following two differences in the *styles* of API
>> provided
>> > > by 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos, with
> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing
modular
> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.

Can you clarify which other functionality you're referring to? Mesos only
relies on ZK for leader election and detection. We do have some libraries
available in the code for storing the registry in ZK but we do not support
that currently.

On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 11:02 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos, with
> only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing modular
> functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.
>
> We are ready and waiting to develop here.
>
> As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:
>
> The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has been
> [the prospect of]:
>
>- Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a very small number
>of nodes… potentially even down to 1 node so that it can 'compete' with
>Docker Compose.
>- Reducing the number of distributed systems that all do the same thing
>in a datacentre environment.
>   - Postgres has its own consensus, Docker—e.g, via Kubernetes or
>   Compose—has its own consensus, ZooKeeper has its own consensus, other
>   things like distributed filesystems… they too; have their own
> consensus.
>- The big sell from that first point is actually showing people how to
>run Mesos and use it for their regular day-to-day development, e.g.:
>1. Context switching when the one engineer is on multiple projects
>   2. …then use the same technology at scale.
>- The big sell from that second point is to reduce the network traffic,
>speed up each systems consensus—through all using the one system—and
>simplify analytics.
>
>This would be a big deal for your bigger clients, who can easily
>quantify what this network traffic costs, and what a reduction in
> network
>traffic with a corresponding increase in speed would mean.
>
>Eventually this will mean that Ops people can tradeoff guarantees for
>speed (and vice-versa).
>- Supporting ZooKeeper, Consul, and etcd is just the start.
>- Supporting Mesos is just the start.
>- We plan on adding more consensus-guaranteeing systems—maybe even our
>own Paxos and Raft—and adding this to systems in the Mesos ecosystem
> like
>Chronos, Marathon, and Aurora.
>It is my understanding that a big part of Mesosphere's rebranding is
>Kubernetes related.
>
> Recently—well, just before COVID19!—I spoke at the Sydney Kubernetes Meetup
> at Google. They too—including Google—were excited by the prospect of
> removing etcd as a hard-dependency, and supporting all the different ones
> liboffkv supports.
>
> I have the budget, team, and expertise at the ready to invest and
> contribute these changes. If there are certain design patterns and
> refactors you want us to commit to along the way, just say the word.
>
> Excitedly yours,
>
> Samuel Marks
> Charity  | consultancy 
> | open-source  | LinkedIn
> 
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:42 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> wrote:
>
> > AndreiS just reminded me that we have module interfaces for the master
> > detector and contender:
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/detector.hpp
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/contender.hpp
> >
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/detector.hpp
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/contender.hpp
> >
> > These should allow you to implement the integration with your library, we
> > may need to adjust the interfaces a little, but this will let you get
> what
> > you need done without the burden on us to shepherd the work.
> >
> > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:38 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
> >
> > > Following on from the discussion on GitHub and here on the
> mailing-list,
> > > here is the proposal from me and my team:
> > > --
> > >
> > > Choice of approach
> > >
> > > The “mediator” of every interaction with ZooKeeper in Mesos is the
> > > ZooKeeper
> > > class, declared in include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp.
> > >
> > > Of note are the following two differences in the *styles* of API
> provided
> > > by ZooKeeper class and liboffkv:
> > >
> > >-
> > >
> > >Push-style mechanism of notifications on changes in “watched” data,
> > >versus pull-style one in liboffkv. In Mesos, the notifications are
> > >delivered via the Watcher interface, defined in the same file as
> > >ZooKeeper. This interface has the process method, which is invoked
> by
> > an
> > >instance of ZooKeeper at most once for each 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Apache ZooKeeper is used for a number of different things in Mesos, with
only leader election being customisable with modules. Your existing modular
functionality is insufficient for decoupling from Apache ZooKeeper.

We are ready and waiting to develop here.

As mentioned over our off-mailing-list communiqué:

The main advantages—and reasoning—for my investment into Mesos has been
[the prospect of]:

   - Making it performant and low-resource utilising on a very small number
   of nodes… potentially even down to 1 node so that it can 'compete' with
   Docker Compose.
   - Reducing the number of distributed systems that all do the same thing
   in a datacentre environment.
  - Postgres has its own consensus, Docker—e.g, via Kubernetes or
  Compose—has its own consensus, ZooKeeper has its own consensus, other
  things like distributed filesystems… they too; have their own consensus.
   - The big sell from that first point is actually showing people how to
   run Mesos and use it for their regular day-to-day development, e.g.:
   1. Context switching when the one engineer is on multiple projects
  2. …then use the same technology at scale.
   - The big sell from that second point is to reduce the network traffic,
   speed up each systems consensus—through all using the one system—and
   simplify analytics.

   This would be a big deal for your bigger clients, who can easily
   quantify what this network traffic costs, and what a reduction in network
   traffic with a corresponding increase in speed would mean.

   Eventually this will mean that Ops people can tradeoff guarantees for
   speed (and vice-versa).
   - Supporting ZooKeeper, Consul, and etcd is just the start.
   - Supporting Mesos is just the start.
   - We plan on adding more consensus-guaranteeing systems—maybe even our
   own Paxos and Raft—and adding this to systems in the Mesos ecosystem like
   Chronos, Marathon, and Aurora.
   It is my understanding that a big part of Mesosphere's rebranding is
   Kubernetes related.

Recently—well, just before COVID19!—I spoke at the Sydney Kubernetes Meetup
at Google. They too—including Google—were excited by the prospect of
removing etcd as a hard-dependency, and supporting all the different ones
liboffkv supports.

I have the budget, team, and expertise at the ready to invest and
contribute these changes. If there are certain design patterns and
refactors you want us to commit to along the way, just say the word.

Excitedly yours,

Samuel Marks
Charity  | consultancy 
| open-source  | LinkedIn



On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:42 AM Benjamin Mahler  wrote:

> AndreiS just reminded me that we have module interfaces for the master
> detector and contender:
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/detector.hpp
>
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/contender.hpp
>
>
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/detector.hpp
>
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/contender.hpp
>
> These should allow you to implement the integration with your library, we
> may need to adjust the interfaces a little, but this will let you get what
> you need done without the burden on us to shepherd the work.
>
> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:38 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
> > Following on from the discussion on GitHub and here on the mailing-list,
> > here is the proposal from me and my team:
> > --
> >
> > Choice of approach
> >
> > The “mediator” of every interaction with ZooKeeper in Mesos is the
> > ZooKeeper
> > class, declared in include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp.
> >
> > Of note are the following two differences in the *styles* of API provided
> > by ZooKeeper class and liboffkv:
> >
> >-
> >
> >Push-style mechanism of notifications on changes in “watched” data,
> >versus pull-style one in liboffkv. In Mesos, the notifications are
> >delivered via the Watcher interface, defined in the same file as
> >ZooKeeper. This interface has the process method, which is invoked by
> an
> >instance of ZooKeeper at most once for each watch. There is also a
> >special event which informs the watcher that the connection has been
> >dropped. An optional instance of Watcher is passed to the constructor
> of
> >ZooKeeper.
> >-
> >
> >Asynchronous session establishment process in ZooKeeper versus
> >synchronous one (if at all — e.g. for Consul there is no concept of
> >“session” currently defined at all) in liboffkv.
> >
> > The two users of the ZooKeeper are:
> >
> >1.
> >
> >GroupProcess;
> >2.
> >
> >ZooKeeperStorageProcess.
> >
> > We will thus evaluate the possible approaches of integrating liboffkv
> into
> > Mesos through the prism of details of their usage.
> >
> > The two possible approaches are:
> >
> > 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

AndreiS just reminded me that we have module interfaces for the master
detector and contender:

https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/detector.hpp
https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/module/contender.hpp

https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/detector.hpp
https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/master/contender.hpp

These should allow you to implement the integration with your library, we
may need to adjust the interfaces a little, but this will let you get what
you need done without the burden on us to shepherd the work.

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 8:38 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Following on from the discussion on GitHub and here on the mailing-list,
> here is the proposal from me and my team:
> --
>
> Choice of approach
>
> The “mediator” of every interaction with ZooKeeper in Mesos is the
> ZooKeeper
> class, declared in include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp.
>
> Of note are the following two differences in the *styles* of API provided
> by ZooKeeper class and liboffkv:
>
>-
>
>Push-style mechanism of notifications on changes in “watched” data,
>versus pull-style one in liboffkv. In Mesos, the notifications are
>delivered via the Watcher interface, defined in the same file as
>ZooKeeper. This interface has the process method, which is invoked by an
>instance of ZooKeeper at most once for each watch. There is also a
>special event which informs the watcher that the connection has been
>dropped. An optional instance of Watcher is passed to the constructor of
>ZooKeeper.
>-
>
>Asynchronous session establishment process in ZooKeeper versus
>synchronous one (if at all — e.g. for Consul there is no concept of
>“session” currently defined at all) in liboffkv.
>
> The two users of the ZooKeeper are:
>
>1.
>
>GroupProcess;
>2.
>
>ZooKeeperStorageProcess.
>
> We will thus evaluate the possible approaches of integrating liboffkv into
> Mesos through the prism of details of their usage.
>
> The two possible approaches are:
>
>1.
>
>Replace all usages of ZooKeeper with liboffkv-specific code under #ifdef
>guards.
>
>This approach would scale badly, as alternative liboffkv-specific
>implementations will be needed for both of the users.
>
>Moreover, we think that conditional compilation results in maintenance
>nightmare; see, e.g.:
>-
>
>   RealWaitForChar() in vim ;
>   -
>
>   “#ifdef Considered Harmful, or Portability Experience With C News”
>   paper by Henry Spencer and Geoff Collyer
>   .
>
>The creators of the C programming language, which introduced the concept
>in the first place, have also spoken against conditional compilation:
>-
>
>   In “The Practice of Programming” by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike,
>   the following advice is given: “Avoid conditional compilation.
> Conditional
>   compilation with #ifdef and similar preprocessor directives is hard
>   to manage, because information tends to get sprinkled throughout the
>   source.”
>   -
>
>   In “Plan 9 from Bell Labs” paper by Rob Pike, Ken Thompson et al.
>   ,
> the
>   following is said: “Conditional compilation, even with #ifdef, is
>   used sparingly in Plan 9. The only architecture-dependent #ifdefs in
>   the system are in low-level routines in the graphics library.
> Instead, we
>   avoid such dependencies or, when necessary, isolate them in
> separate source
>   files or libraries. Besides making code hard to read, #ifdefs make it
>   impossible to know what source is compiled into the binary or whether
>   source protected by them will compile or work properly. They
> make it harder
>   to maintain software.”
>   2.
>
>Modify the *implementation* of the ZooKeeper class to use liboffkv,
>possibly renaming the class to something akin to KvClient to reflect the
>fact that would no longer be ZooKeeper-specific (this also includes the
>renaming of error codes and other similar nomenclature). The old
> version of
>the implementation would be put under an #ifdef guard, thus minimising
>the number — and maintenance impact — of #ifdefs.
>
> Naturally there are some advantages to taking the ifdef approach, namely
> that we can guarantee no difference in builds between before offscale's
> contribution and after, unless a compiler flag is provided.
>
> However to avoid polluting the code, we are recommending the second
> approach.
> Incompatibilities
>
> The following is the list of incompatibilities between the interfaces of
> ZooKeeper class and liboffkv. Some of those features should be implemented
> in liboffkv; others should be emulated inside the 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Following on from the discussion on GitHub and here on the mailing-list,
here is the proposal from me and my team:
--

Choice of approach

The “mediator” of every interaction with ZooKeeper in Mesos is the ZooKeeper
class, declared in include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp.

Of note are the following two differences in the *styles* of API provided
by ZooKeeper class and liboffkv:

   -

   Push-style mechanism of notifications on changes in “watched” data,
   versus pull-style one in liboffkv. In Mesos, the notifications are
   delivered via the Watcher interface, defined in the same file as
   ZooKeeper. This interface has the process method, which is invoked by an
   instance of ZooKeeper at most once for each watch. There is also a
   special event which informs the watcher that the connection has been
   dropped. An optional instance of Watcher is passed to the constructor of
   ZooKeeper.
   -

   Asynchronous session establishment process in ZooKeeper versus
   synchronous one (if at all — e.g. for Consul there is no concept of
   “session” currently defined at all) in liboffkv.

The two users of the ZooKeeper are:

   1.

   GroupProcess;
   2.

   ZooKeeperStorageProcess.

We will thus evaluate the possible approaches of integrating liboffkv into
Mesos through the prism of details of their usage.

The two possible approaches are:

   1.

   Replace all usages of ZooKeeper with liboffkv-specific code under #ifdef
   guards.

   This approach would scale badly, as alternative liboffkv-specific
   implementations will be needed for both of the users.

   Moreover, we think that conditional compilation results in maintenance
   nightmare; see, e.g.:
   -

  RealWaitForChar() in vim ;
  -

  “#ifdef Considered Harmful, or Portability Experience With C News”
  paper by Henry Spencer and Geoff Collyer
  .

   The creators of the C programming language, which introduced the concept
   in the first place, have also spoken against conditional compilation:
   -

  In “The Practice of Programming” by Brian W. Kernighan and Rob Pike,
  the following advice is given: “Avoid conditional compilation.
Conditional
  compilation with #ifdef and similar preprocessor directives is hard
  to manage, because information tends to get sprinkled throughout the
  source.”
  -

  In “Plan 9 from Bell Labs” paper by Rob Pike, Ken Thompson et al.
  , the
  following is said: “Conditional compilation, even with #ifdef, is
  used sparingly in Plan 9. The only architecture-dependent #ifdefs in
  the system are in low-level routines in the graphics library. Instead, we
  avoid such dependencies or, when necessary, isolate them in
separate source
  files or libraries. Besides making code hard to read, #ifdefs make it
  impossible to know what source is compiled into the binary or whether
  source protected by them will compile or work properly. They
make it harder
  to maintain software.”
  2.

   Modify the *implementation* of the ZooKeeper class to use liboffkv,
   possibly renaming the class to something akin to KvClient to reflect the
   fact that would no longer be ZooKeeper-specific (this also includes the
   renaming of error codes and other similar nomenclature). The old version of
   the implementation would be put under an #ifdef guard, thus minimising
   the number — and maintenance impact — of #ifdefs.

Naturally there are some advantages to taking the ifdef approach, namely
that we can guarantee no difference in builds between before offscale's
contribution and after, unless a compiler flag is provided.

However to avoid polluting the code, we are recommending the second
approach.
Incompatibilities

The following is the list of incompatibilities between the interfaces of
ZooKeeper class and liboffkv. Some of those features should be implemented
in liboffkv; others should be emulated inside the ZooKeeper/KvClient class;
and for others still, the change of the interface of ZooKeeper/KvClient is
the preferred solution.

   -

   Asynchronous session establishment. We propose to emulate this through
   spawning a new thread in the constructor of ZooKeeper/KvClient.
   -

   Push-style watch notification API. We propose to emulate this through
   spawning a new thread for each watch; such a thread would then do the wait
   and then invoke watcher->process() under a mutex. The number of threads
   should not be a concern here, as the only user that uses watches at all (
   GroupProcess) only registers at most one watch.
   -

   Multiple servers in URL string. We propose to implement this in liboffkv.
   -

   Authentication. We propose to implement this in liboffkv.
   -

   ACLs (access control lists). The following ACLs are in fact used for
   

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

So it sounds like:

Zookeeper: Official C library has an async API. Are we gaining a lot with
the third party C++ wrapper you pointed to? Maybe it "just works", but it
looks very inactive and it's hard to tell how maintained it is.

Consul: No official C or C++ library. Only some third party C++ ones that
look pretty inactive. The ppconsul one you linked to does have an issue
about an async API, I commented on it:
https://github.com/oliora/ppconsul/issues/26.

etcd: Can use gRPC c++ client async API.

Since 2 of 3 provide an async API already, I would lean more towards an
async API so that we don't have to change anything with the mesos code when
the last one gets an async implementation. However,  we currently use the
synchronous ZK API so I realize this would be more work to first adjust the
mesos code to use the async zookeeper API. I agree that a synchronous
interface is simpler to start with since that will be an easier integration
and we currently do not perform many concurrent operations (and probably
won't anytime soon).

On Sun, Apr 26, 2020 at 11:17 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> In terms of asynchronous vs synchronous interfacing, when we started
> liboffkv, it had an asynchronous interface. Then we decided to drop it and
> implemented a synchronous one, due to the dependent libraries which
> liboffkv uses under the hood.
>
> Our ZooKeeper implementation uses the zookeeper-cpp library
> —a well-maintained C++ wrapper
> around common Zookeeper C bindings [which we contributed to vcpkg
> ]. It has an asynchronous
> interface based on std::future
> . Since std::future does
> not provide chaining or any callbacks, a Zookeeper-specific result cannot
> be asynchronously mapped to liboffkv result. In early versions of liboffkv
> we used thread pool to do the mapping.
>
> Consul implementation is based on the ppconsul
>  library [which we contributed to
> vcpkg
> <
> https://github.com/microsoft/vcpkg/pulls?q=is%3Apr+author%3ASamuelMarks+ppconsul
> >],
> which in turn utilizes libcurl .
> Unfortunately, ppconsul uses libcurl's easy interface, and consequently it
> is synchronous by design. Again, in the early version of the library we
> used a thread pool to overcome this limitation.
>
> As for etcd, we autogenerated the gRPC C++ client
>  [which we contributed to
> vcpkg
> ]. gRPC provides an
> asynchronous interface, so a "fair" async client can be implemented on top
> of it.
>
> To sum up, the chosen toolkit provided two of three implementations require
> thread pool. After careful consideration, we have preferred to give the
> user control over threading and opted out of the asynchrony.
>
> Nevertheless, there are some options. zookeeper-cpp allows building with
> custom futures/promises, so we can create a custom build to use in
> liboffkv/Mesos. Another variant is to use plain C ZK bindings
> <
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=zookeeper.git;a=tree;f=zookeeper-client/zookeeper-client-c;h=c72b57355c977366edfe11304067ff35f5cf215d;hb=HEAD
> >
> instead of the C++ library.
> As for the Consul client, the only meaningful option is to opt out of using
> ppconsul and operate through libcurl's multi interface.
>
> At this point implementing asynchronous interfaces will require rewriting
> liboffkv from the ground up. I can allocate the budget for doing this, as I
> have done to date. However, it would be good to have some more
> back-and-forth before reengaging.
>
> Design Doc:
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NOfyt7NzpMxxatdFs3f9ixKUS81DHHDVEKBbtVfVi_0
> [feel free to add it to
> http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/design-docs/]
>
> Thanks,
>
> *SAMUEL MARKS*
> Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
> https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
> Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
> | Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 
>
> PS: Damien - not against contributing to FoundationDB, but priorities are
> Mesos and the Mesos ecosystem, followed by Kuberentes and its ecosystem.
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:19 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> wrote:
>
> > Samuel: One more thing I forgot to mention, we would prefer to use an
> > asynchronous client interface rather than a synchronous one. Is that
> > something you have considered?
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:11 PM Vinod Kone  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Samuel,
> > >
> > > Thanks for showing interest in contributing to the project. Having
> > > optionality between ZooKeeper and Etcd would be great for the project
> and
> > > something that has been brought up a few times before, as you noted.
> > >
> > > I echo everything that BenM said. As part of the design it would be
> great
> > > 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

In terms of asynchronous vs synchronous interfacing, when we started
liboffkv, it had an asynchronous interface. Then we decided to drop it and
implemented a synchronous one, due to the dependent libraries which
liboffkv uses under the hood.

Our ZooKeeper implementation uses the zookeeper-cpp library
—a well-maintained C++ wrapper
around common Zookeeper C bindings [which we contributed to vcpkg
]. It has an asynchronous
interface based on std::future
. Since std::future does
not provide chaining or any callbacks, a Zookeeper-specific result cannot
be asynchronously mapped to liboffkv result. In early versions of liboffkv
we used thread pool to do the mapping.

Consul implementation is based on the ppconsul
 library [which we contributed to vcpkg
],
which in turn utilizes libcurl .
Unfortunately, ppconsul uses libcurl's easy interface, and consequently it
is synchronous by design. Again, in the early version of the library we
used a thread pool to overcome this limitation.

As for etcd, we autogenerated the gRPC C++ client
 [which we contributed to vcpkg
]. gRPC provides an
asynchronous interface, so a "fair" async client can be implemented on top
of it.

To sum up, the chosen toolkit provided two of three implementations require
thread pool. After careful consideration, we have preferred to give the
user control over threading and opted out of the asynchrony.

Nevertheless, there are some options. zookeeper-cpp allows building with
custom futures/promises, so we can create a custom build to use in
liboffkv/Mesos. Another variant is to use plain C ZK bindings

instead of the C++ library.
As for the Consul client, the only meaningful option is to opt out of using
ppconsul and operate through libcurl's multi interface.

At this point implementing asynchronous interfaces will require rewriting
liboffkv from the ground up. I can allocate the budget for doing this, as I
have done to date. However, it would be good to have some more
back-and-forth before reengaging.

Design Doc:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NOfyt7NzpMxxatdFs3f9ixKUS81DHHDVEKBbtVfVi_0
[feel free to add it to
http://mesos.apache.org/documentation/latest/design-docs/]

Thanks,

*SAMUEL MARKS*
Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
| Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 

PS: Damien - not against contributing to FoundationDB, but priorities are
Mesos and the Mesos ecosystem, followed by Kuberentes and its ecosystem.

On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:19 AM Benjamin Mahler  wrote:

> Samuel: One more thing I forgot to mention, we would prefer to use an
> asynchronous client interface rather than a synchronous one. Is that
> something you have considered?
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:11 PM Vinod Kone  wrote:
>
> > Hi Samuel,
> >
> > Thanks for showing interest in contributing to the project. Having
> > optionality between ZooKeeper and Etcd would be great for the project and
> > something that has been brought up a few times before, as you noted.
> >
> > I echo everything that BenM said. As part of the design it would be great
> > to see the migration path for users currently using Mesos with ZooKeeper
> to
> > Etcd. Ideally, the migration can happen without much user intervention.
> >
> > Additionally, from our past experience, efforts like these are more
> > successful if the people writing the code have experience with how things
> > work in Mesos code base. So I would recommend starting small, maybe have
> a
> > few engineers work on a couple "newbie" tickets and do some small
> projects
> > and have those committed to the project. That gives the committers some
> > level of confidence about quality of the code and be more open to bigger
> > changes like etcd integration. It would also help contributors get a
> better
> > feeling for the lay of the land and see if they are truly interested in
> > maintaining this piece of integration for the long haul. This is a bit
> of a
> > longer path but I think it would be more a fruitful one.
> >
> > Looking forward to seeing new contributions to Mesos including the above
> > design!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
> >
> > > Happy to build a design doc,
> > >
> > > To answer your question on what Offscale.io is, it's my software and
> > > biomedical engineering consultancy. Currently 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

Samuel: One more thing I forgot to mention, we would prefer to use an
asynchronous client interface rather than a synchronous one. Is that
something you have considered?

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 6:11 PM Vinod Kone  wrote:

> Hi Samuel,
>
> Thanks for showing interest in contributing to the project. Having
> optionality between ZooKeeper and Etcd would be great for the project and
> something that has been brought up a few times before, as you noted.
>
> I echo everything that BenM said. As part of the design it would be great
> to see the migration path for users currently using Mesos with ZooKeeper to
> Etcd. Ideally, the migration can happen without much user intervention.
>
> Additionally, from our past experience, efforts like these are more
> successful if the people writing the code have experience with how things
> work in Mesos code base. So I would recommend starting small, maybe have a
> few engineers work on a couple "newbie" tickets and do some small projects
> and have those committed to the project. That gives the committers some
> level of confidence about quality of the code and be more open to bigger
> changes like etcd integration. It would also help contributors get a better
> feeling for the lay of the land and see if they are truly interested in
> maintaining this piece of integration for the long haul. This is a bit of a
> longer path but I think it would be more a fruitful one.
>
> Looking forward to seeing new contributions to Mesos including the above
> design!
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
> > Happy to build a design doc,
> >
> > To answer your question on what Offscale.io is, it's my software and
> > biomedical engineering consultancy. Currently it's still rather small,
> with
> > only 8 engineers, but I'm expecting & preparing to grow rapidly.
> >
> > My philosophy is always open-source and patent-free, so that's what my
> > consultancy—and for that matter, the charitable research that I fund
> > through it —follows.
> >
> > The goal of everything we create is: interoperable (cross-platform,
> > cross-technology, cross-language, multi-cloud); open-source (Apache-2.0
> OR
> > MIT); with a view towards scaling:
> >
> >- teams;
> >- software-development ;
> >- infrastructure [this proposed Mesos contribution + our DevOps
> > tooling];
> >- [in the charity's case] facilitating very large-scale medical
> >diagnostic screening.
> >
> > Technologies like Mesos we expect to both optimise resource
> > allocation—reducing costs and increasing data locality—and award us
> > 'bragging rights' with which we can gain clients that are already using
> > Mesos (which, from my experience, is always big corporates… though
> > hopefully contributions like these will make it attractive to small
> > companies also).
> >
> > So no, we're not going anywhere, and are planning to maintain this
> library
> > into the future
> >
> > PS: Once accepted by Mesos, we'll be making similar contributions to
> other
> > Mesos ecosystem projects like Chronos ,
> > Marathon , and Aurora
> >  as well as to unrelated
> > projects (e.g., removing etcd as a hard-dependency from Kubernetes
> > … enabling them to choose between ZooKeeper,
> etcd,
> > and Consul).
> >
> > Thanks for your continual feedback,
> >
> > *SAMUEL MARKS*
> > Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
> > https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
> > Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd <
> https://sydneyscientific.org>
> > | Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:58 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Oh ok, could you tell us a little more about how you're using Mesos?
> And
> > > what offscale.io is?
> > >
> > > Strictly speaking, we don't really need packaging and releases as we
> can
> > > bundle the dependency in our repo and that's what we do for many of our
> > > dependencies.
> > > To me, the most important thing is the commitment to maintain the
> library
> > > and address issues that come up.
> > > I also would lean more towards a run-time flag rather than a build
> level
> > > flag, if possible.
> > >
> > > I think the best place to start would be to put together a design doc.
> > The
> > > act of writing that will force the author to think through the details
> > (and
> > > there are a lot of them!), and we'll then get a chance to give
> feedback.
> > > You can look through the mailing list for past examples of design docs
> > (in
> > > terms of which sections to include, etc).
> > >
> > > How does that sound?
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:44 PM Samuel Marks 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear Benjamin Mahler [and *Developers mailing-list for Apache
> Mesos*],
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Damien Gerard]

Actually I would be happy with foundationdb if need some help :)

On 4/18/20 7:10 AM, Vinod Kone wrote:

Hi Samuel,

Thanks for showing interest in contributing to the project. Having
optionality between ZooKeeper and Etcd would be great for the project and
something that has been brought up a few times before, as you noted.

I echo everything that BenM said. As part of the design it would be great
to see the migration path for users currently using Mesos with ZooKeeper to
Etcd. Ideally, the migration can happen without much user intervention.

Additionally, from our past experience, efforts like these are more
successful if the people writing the code have experience with how things
work in Mesos code base. So I would recommend starting small, maybe have a
few engineers work on a couple "newbie" tickets and do some small projects
and have those committed to the project. That gives the committers some
level of confidence about quality of the code and be more open to bigger
changes like etcd integration. It would also help contributors get a better
feeling for the lay of the land and see if they are truly interested in
maintaining this piece of integration for the long haul. This is a bit of a
longer path but I think it would be more a fruitful one.

Looking forward to seeing new contributions to Mesos including the above
design!

Thanks,

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:


Happy to build a design doc,

To answer your question on what Offscale.io is, it's my software and
biomedical engineering consultancy. Currently it's still rather small, with
only 8 engineers, but I'm expecting & preparing to grow rapidly.

My philosophy is always open-source and patent-free, so that's what my
consultancy—and for that matter, the charitable research that I fund
through it —follows.

The goal of everything we create is: interoperable (cross-platform,
cross-technology, cross-language, multi-cloud); open-source (Apache-2.0 OR
MIT); with a view towards scaling:

- teams;
- software-development ;
- infrastructure [this proposed Mesos contribution + our DevOps
tooling];
- [in the charity's case] facilitating very large-scale medical
diagnostic screening.

Technologies like Mesos we expect to both optimise resource
allocation—reducing costs and increasing data locality—and award us
'bragging rights' with which we can gain clients that are already using
Mesos (which, from my experience, is always big corporates… though
hopefully contributions like these will make it attractive to small
companies also).

So no, we're not going anywhere, and are planning to maintain this library
into the future

PS: Once accepted by Mesos, we'll be making similar contributions to other
Mesos ecosystem projects like Chronos ,
Marathon , and Aurora
 as well as to unrelated
projects (e.g., removing etcd as a hard-dependency from Kubernetes
… enabling them to choose between ZooKeeper, etcd,
and Consul).

Thanks for your continual feedback,

*SAMUEL MARKS*
Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
| Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 


On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:58 AM Benjamin Mahler 
wrote:


Oh ok, could you tell us a little more about how you're using Mesos? And
what offscale.io is?

Strictly speaking, we don't really need packaging and releases as we can
bundle the dependency in our repo and that's what we do for many of our
dependencies.
To me, the most important thing is the commitment to maintain the library
and address issues that come up.
I also would lean more towards a run-time flag rather than a build level
flag, if possible.

I think the best place to start would be to put together a design doc.

The

act of writing that will force the author to think through the details

(and

there are a lot of them!), and we'll then get a chance to give feedback.
You can look through the mailing list for past examples of design docs

(in

terms of which sections to include, etc).

How does that sound?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:44 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:


Dear Benjamin Mahler [and *Developers mailing-list for Apache Mesos*],

Thanks for responding so quickly.

Actually this entire project I invested—time & money, including a
development team—explicitly in order to contribute this to Apache

Mesos.

So

no releases yet, because I wanted to ensure it was up to the

specification

requirements referenced in dev@mesos.apache.org before proceeding with
packaging and releases.

Tests have been setup in Travis CI for Linux (Ubuntu 18.04) and macOS,
happy to set them up elsewhere also. There are also some Windows builds
that need a bit of tweaking, then they will be 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Vinod Kone]

Hi Samuel,

Thanks for showing interest in contributing to the project. Having
optionality between ZooKeeper and Etcd would be great for the project and
something that has been brought up a few times before, as you noted.

I echo everything that BenM said. As part of the design it would be great
to see the migration path for users currently using Mesos with ZooKeeper to
Etcd. Ideally, the migration can happen without much user intervention.

Additionally, from our past experience, efforts like these are more
successful if the people writing the code have experience with how things
work in Mesos code base. So I would recommend starting small, maybe have a
few engineers work on a couple "newbie" tickets and do some small projects
and have those committed to the project. That gives the committers some
level of confidence about quality of the code and be more open to bigger
changes like etcd integration. It would also help contributors get a better
feeling for the lay of the land and see if they are truly interested in
maintaining this piece of integration for the long haul. This is a bit of a
longer path but I think it would be more a fruitful one.

Looking forward to seeing new contributions to Mesos including the above
design!

Thanks,

On Fri, Apr 17, 2020 at 4:52 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Happy to build a design doc,
>
> To answer your question on what Offscale.io is, it's my software and
> biomedical engineering consultancy. Currently it's still rather small, with
> only 8 engineers, but I'm expecting & preparing to grow rapidly.
>
> My philosophy is always open-source and patent-free, so that's what my
> consultancy—and for that matter, the charitable research that I fund
> through it —follows.
>
> The goal of everything we create is: interoperable (cross-platform,
> cross-technology, cross-language, multi-cloud); open-source (Apache-2.0 OR
> MIT); with a view towards scaling:
>
>- teams;
>- software-development ;
>- infrastructure [this proposed Mesos contribution + our DevOps
> tooling];
>- [in the charity's case] facilitating very large-scale medical
>diagnostic screening.
>
> Technologies like Mesos we expect to both optimise resource
> allocation—reducing costs and increasing data locality—and award us
> 'bragging rights' with which we can gain clients that are already using
> Mesos (which, from my experience, is always big corporates… though
> hopefully contributions like these will make it attractive to small
> companies also).
>
> So no, we're not going anywhere, and are planning to maintain this library
> into the future
>
> PS: Once accepted by Mesos, we'll be making similar contributions to other
> Mesos ecosystem projects like Chronos ,
> Marathon , and Aurora
>  as well as to unrelated
> projects (e.g., removing etcd as a hard-dependency from Kubernetes
> … enabling them to choose between ZooKeeper, etcd,
> and Consul).
>
> Thanks for your continual feedback,
>
> *SAMUEL MARKS*
> Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
> https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
> Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
> | Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:58 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> wrote:
>
> > Oh ok, could you tell us a little more about how you're using Mesos? And
> > what offscale.io is?
> >
> > Strictly speaking, we don't really need packaging and releases as we can
> > bundle the dependency in our repo and that's what we do for many of our
> > dependencies.
> > To me, the most important thing is the commitment to maintain the library
> > and address issues that come up.
> > I also would lean more towards a run-time flag rather than a build level
> > flag, if possible.
> >
> > I think the best place to start would be to put together a design doc.
> The
> > act of writing that will force the author to think through the details
> (and
> > there are a lot of them!), and we'll then get a chance to give feedback.
> > You can look through the mailing list for past examples of design docs
> (in
> > terms of which sections to include, etc).
> >
> > How does that sound?
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:44 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Benjamin Mahler [and *Developers mailing-list for Apache Mesos*],
> > >
> > > Thanks for responding so quickly.
> > >
> > > Actually this entire project I invested—time & money, including a
> > > development team—explicitly in order to contribute this to Apache
> Mesos.
> > So
> > > no releases yet, because I wanted to ensure it was up to the
> > specification
> > > requirements referenced in dev@mesos.apache.org before proceeding with
> > > packaging and releases.
> > >
> > > Tests have been setup in Travis CI for Linux (Ubuntu 18.04) and 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Happy to build a design doc,

To answer your question on what Offscale.io is, it's my software and
biomedical engineering consultancy. Currently it's still rather small, with
only 8 engineers, but I'm expecting & preparing to grow rapidly.

My philosophy is always open-source and patent-free, so that's what my
consultancy—and for that matter, the charitable research that I fund
through it —follows.

The goal of everything we create is: interoperable (cross-platform,
cross-technology, cross-language, multi-cloud); open-source (Apache-2.0 OR
MIT); with a view towards scaling:

   - teams;
   - software-development ;
   - infrastructure [this proposed Mesos contribution + our DevOps tooling];
   - [in the charity's case] facilitating very large-scale medical
   diagnostic screening.

Technologies like Mesos we expect to both optimise resource
allocation—reducing costs and increasing data locality—and award us
'bragging rights' with which we can gain clients that are already using
Mesos (which, from my experience, is always big corporates… though
hopefully contributions like these will make it attractive to small
companies also).

So no, we're not going anywhere, and are planning to maintain this library
into the future

PS: Once accepted by Mesos, we'll be making similar contributions to other
Mesos ecosystem projects like Chronos ,
Marathon , and Aurora
 as well as to unrelated
projects (e.g., removing etcd as a hard-dependency from Kubernetes
… enabling them to choose between ZooKeeper, etcd,
and Consul).

Thanks for your continual feedback,

*SAMUEL MARKS*
Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
| Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 


On Sat, Apr 18, 2020 at 6:58 AM Benjamin Mahler  wrote:

> Oh ok, could you tell us a little more about how you're using Mesos? And
> what offscale.io is?
>
> Strictly speaking, we don't really need packaging and releases as we can
> bundle the dependency in our repo and that's what we do for many of our
> dependencies.
> To me, the most important thing is the commitment to maintain the library
> and address issues that come up.
> I also would lean more towards a run-time flag rather than a build level
> flag, if possible.
>
> I think the best place to start would be to put together a design doc. The
> act of writing that will force the author to think through the details (and
> there are a lot of them!), and we'll then get a chance to give feedback.
> You can look through the mailing list for past examples of design docs (in
> terms of which sections to include, etc).
>
> How does that sound?
>
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:44 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
> > Dear Benjamin Mahler [and *Developers mailing-list for Apache Mesos*],
> >
> > Thanks for responding so quickly.
> >
> > Actually this entire project I invested—time & money, including a
> > development team—explicitly in order to contribute this to Apache Mesos.
> So
> > no releases yet, because I wanted to ensure it was up to the
> specification
> > requirements referenced in dev@mesos.apache.org before proceeding with
> > packaging and releases.
> >
> > Tests have been setup in Travis CI for Linux (Ubuntu 18.04) and macOS,
> > happy to set them up elsewhere also. There are also some Windows builds
> > that need a bit of tweaking, then they will be pushed into CI also. We
> are
> > just starting to do some work on reducing build & test times.
> >
> > Would be great to build a checklist of things you want to see before we
> > send the PR, e.g.,
> >
> >- ☐ hosted docs;
> >- ☐ CI/CD—including packaging—for Windows, Linux, and macOS;
> >- ☐ releases on GitHub;
> >- ☐ consistent session and auth interface
> >- ☐ different tests [can you expand here?]
> >
> > This is just an example checklist, would be best if you and others can
> > flesh it out, so when we do send the PR it's in an immediately mergable
> > state.
> >
> > BTW: Originally had a debate with my team about whether to send a PR out
> of
> > the blue—like Microsoft famously did for Node.js
> > —or start an *offer thread* on
> > the developers mailing-list.
> >
> > Looking forward to contributing 呂
> >
> > *SAMUEL MARKS*
> > Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
> > https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
> > Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd <
> https://sydneyscientific.org>
> > | Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:38 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks for reaching out, a well maintained and well written wrapper
> > > interface to the three 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

Oh ok, could you tell us a little more about how you're using Mesos? And
what offscale.io is?

Strictly speaking, we don't really need packaging and releases as we can
bundle the dependency in our repo and that's what we do for many of our
dependencies.
To me, the most important thing is the commitment to maintain the library
and address issues that come up.
I also would lean more towards a run-time flag rather than a build level
flag, if possible.

I think the best place to start would be to put together a design doc. The
act of writing that will force the author to think through the details (and
there are a lot of them!), and we'll then get a chance to give feedback.
You can look through the mailing list for past examples of design docs (in
terms of which sections to include, etc).

How does that sound?

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 8:44 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Dear Benjamin Mahler [and *Developers mailing-list for Apache Mesos*],
>
> Thanks for responding so quickly.
>
> Actually this entire project I invested—time & money, including a
> development team—explicitly in order to contribute this to Apache Mesos. So
> no releases yet, because I wanted to ensure it was up to the specification
> requirements referenced in dev@mesos.apache.org before proceeding with
> packaging and releases.
>
> Tests have been setup in Travis CI for Linux (Ubuntu 18.04) and macOS,
> happy to set them up elsewhere also. There are also some Windows builds
> that need a bit of tweaking, then they will be pushed into CI also. We are
> just starting to do some work on reducing build & test times.
>
> Would be great to build a checklist of things you want to see before we
> send the PR, e.g.,
>
>- ☐ hosted docs;
>- ☐ CI/CD—including packaging—for Windows, Linux, and macOS;
>- ☐ releases on GitHub;
>- ☐ consistent session and auth interface
>- ☐ different tests [can you expand here?]
>
> This is just an example checklist, would be best if you and others can
> flesh it out, so when we do send the PR it's in an immediately mergable
> state.
>
> BTW: Originally had a debate with my team about whether to send a PR out of
> the blue—like Microsoft famously did for Node.js
> —or start an *offer thread* on
> the developers mailing-list.
>
> Looking forward to contributing 呂
>
> *SAMUEL MARKS*
> Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
> https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
> Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
> | Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:38 AM Benjamin Mahler 
> wrote:
>
> > Thanks for reaching out, a well maintained and well written wrapper
> > interface to the three backends would certainly make this easier for us
> vs
> > implementing such an interface ourselves.
> >
> > Is this the client interface?
> >
> >
> https://github.com/offscale/liboffkv/blob/d31181a1e74c5faa0b7f5d7001879640b4d9f111/liboffkv/client.hpp#L115-L142
> >
> > At a quick glance, three ZK things that we rely on but seem to be absent
> > from the common interface is the ZK session, authentication, and
> > authorization. How will these be provided via the common interface?
> >
> > Here is our ZK interface wrapper if you want to see what kinds of things
> we
> > use:
> >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp#L72-L339
> >
> > The project has 0 releases and 0 issues, what kind of usage has it seen?
> > Has there been any testing yet? Would Offscale.io be doing some of the
> > testing?
> >
> > On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:54 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
> >
> > > Apache ZooKeeper  is a large dependency.
> > > Enabling developers and operations to use etcd ,
> Consul
> > > , or ZooKeeper should reduce resource utilisation
> and
> > > enable new use cases.
> > >
> > > There have already been a number of suggestions to get rid of hard
> > > dependency on ZooKeeper. For example, see: MESOS-1806
> > > , MESOS-3574
> > > , MESOS-3797
> > > , MESOS-5828
> > > , MESOS-5829
> > > . However, there are
> > > difficulties in supporting a few implementations for different services
> > > with quite distinct data models.
> > >
> > > A few months ago offscale.io invested in a solution to this problem -
> > > liboffkv  – a *C++* library
> which
> > > provides a *uniform interface over ZooKeeper, Consul KV and etcd*. It
> > > abstracts common features of these services into its own data model
> which
> > > is very similar to ZooKeeper’s one. Careful attention was paid to keep
> > > methods both efficient and 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Samuel Marks]

Dear Benjamin Mahler [and *Developers mailing-list for Apache Mesos*],

Thanks for responding so quickly.

Actually this entire project I invested—time & money, including a
development team—explicitly in order to contribute this to Apache Mesos. So
no releases yet, because I wanted to ensure it was up to the specification
requirements referenced in dev@mesos.apache.org before proceeding with
packaging and releases.

Tests have been setup in Travis CI for Linux (Ubuntu 18.04) and macOS,
happy to set them up elsewhere also. There are also some Windows builds
that need a bit of tweaking, then they will be pushed into CI also. We are
just starting to do some work on reducing build & test times.

Would be great to build a checklist of things you want to see before we
send the PR, e.g.,

   - ☐ hosted docs;
   - ☐ CI/CD—including packaging—for Windows, Linux, and macOS;
   - ☐ releases on GitHub;
   - ☐ consistent session and auth interface
   - ☐ different tests [can you expand here?]

This is just an example checklist, would be best if you and others can
flesh it out, so when we do send the PR it's in an immediately mergable
state.

BTW: Originally had a debate with my team about whether to send a PR out of
the blue—like Microsoft famously did for Node.js
—or start an *offer thread* on
the developers mailing-list.

Looking forward to contributing 呂

*SAMUEL MARKS*
Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
| Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 


On Wed, Apr 15, 2020 at 2:38 AM Benjamin Mahler  wrote:

> Thanks for reaching out, a well maintained and well written wrapper
> interface to the three backends would certainly make this easier for us vs
> implementing such an interface ourselves.
>
> Is this the client interface?
>
> https://github.com/offscale/liboffkv/blob/d31181a1e74c5faa0b7f5d7001879640b4d9f111/liboffkv/client.hpp#L115-L142
>
> At a quick glance, three ZK things that we rely on but seem to be absent
> from the common interface is the ZK session, authentication, and
> authorization. How will these be provided via the common interface?
>
> Here is our ZK interface wrapper if you want to see what kinds of things we
> use:
>
> https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp#L72-L339
>
> The project has 0 releases and 0 issues, what kind of usage has it seen?
> Has there been any testing yet? Would Offscale.io be doing some of the
> testing?
>
> On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:54 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:
>
> > Apache ZooKeeper  is a large dependency.
> > Enabling developers and operations to use etcd , Consul
> > , or ZooKeeper should reduce resource utilisation and
> > enable new use cases.
> >
> > There have already been a number of suggestions to get rid of hard
> > dependency on ZooKeeper. For example, see: MESOS-1806
> > , MESOS-3574
> > , MESOS-3797
> > , MESOS-5828
> > , MESOS-5829
> > . However, there are
> > difficulties in supporting a few implementations for different services
> > with quite distinct data models.
> >
> > A few months ago offscale.io invested in a solution to this problem -
> > liboffkv  – a *C++* library which
> > provides a *uniform interface over ZooKeeper, Consul KV and etcd*. It
> > abstracts common features of these services into its own data model which
> > is very similar to ZooKeeper’s one. Careful attention was paid to keep
> > methods both efficient and consistent. It is cross-platform,
> > open-source (*Apache-2.0
> > OR MIT*), and is written in C++, with vcpkg packaging, *C library output
> > <
> https://github.com/offscale/liboffkv/blob/d3d549e/CMakeLists.txt#L29-L35
> > >*,
> > and additional interfaces in *Go  >*,
> > *Java
> > *, and *Rust
> > *.
> >
> > Offscale.io proposes to replace all ZooKeeper usages in Mesos with usages
> > of liboffkv. Since all interactions which require ZooKeeper in Mesos are
> > conducted through the class Group (and GroupProcess) with a clear
> interface
> > the obvious way to introduce changes is to provide another implementation
> > of the class which uses liboffkv instead of ZooKeeper. In this case the
> > original implementation may be left unchanged in the codebase and build
> > flags to select from ZK-only and liboffkv variants may be introduced.
> Once
> > the community is confident, you can decide to remove the ZK-only option,
> > 

Re: [AREA1 SUSPICIOUS] [OFFER] Remove ZooKeeper as hard-dependency, support etcd, Consul, OR ZooKeeper

[Benjamin Mahler]

Thanks for reaching out, a well maintained and well written wrapper
interface to the three backends would certainly make this easier for us vs
implementing such an interface ourselves.

Is this the client interface?
https://github.com/offscale/liboffkv/blob/d31181a1e74c5faa0b7f5d7001879640b4d9f111/liboffkv/client.hpp#L115-L142

At a quick glance, three ZK things that we rely on but seem to be absent
from the common interface is the ZK session, authentication, and
authorization. How will these be provided via the common interface?

Here is our ZK interface wrapper if you want to see what kinds of things we
use:
https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/1.9.0/include/mesos/zookeeper/zookeeper.hpp#L72-L339

The project has 0 releases and 0 issues, what kind of usage has it seen?
Has there been any testing yet? Would Offscale.io be doing some of the
testing?

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 7:54 PM Samuel Marks  wrote:

> Apache ZooKeeper  is a large dependency.
> Enabling developers and operations to use etcd , Consul
> , or ZooKeeper should reduce resource utilisation and
> enable new use cases.
>
> There have already been a number of suggestions to get rid of hard
> dependency on ZooKeeper. For example, see: MESOS-1806
> , MESOS-3574
> , MESOS-3797
> , MESOS-5828
> , MESOS-5829
> . However, there are
> difficulties in supporting a few implementations for different services
> with quite distinct data models.
>
> A few months ago offscale.io invested in a solution to this problem -
> liboffkv  – a *C++* library which
> provides a *uniform interface over ZooKeeper, Consul KV and etcd*. It
> abstracts common features of these services into its own data model which
> is very similar to ZooKeeper’s one. Careful attention was paid to keep
> methods both efficient and consistent. It is cross-platform,
> open-source (*Apache-2.0
> OR MIT*), and is written in C++, with vcpkg packaging, *C library output
>  >*,
> and additional interfaces in *Go *,
> *Java
> *, and *Rust
> *.
>
> Offscale.io proposes to replace all ZooKeeper usages in Mesos with usages
> of liboffkv. Since all interactions which require ZooKeeper in Mesos are
> conducted through the class Group (and GroupProcess) with a clear interface
> the obvious way to introduce changes is to provide another implementation
> of the class which uses liboffkv instead of ZooKeeper. In this case the
> original implementation may be left unchanged in the codebase and build
> flags to select from ZK-only and liboffkv variants may be introduced. Once
> the community is confident, you can decide to remove the ZK-only option,
> and instead only support liboffkv [which internally has build flags for
> each service].
>
> Removing the hard dependency on ZooKeeper will simplify local deployment
> for testing purposes as well as enable using Mesos in clusters without
> ZooKeeper, e.g. where etcd or Consul is used for coordination. We expect
> this to greatly reduce the amount of resource—network, CPU, disk,
> memory—usage in a datacenter environment.
>
> If the community accepts the initiative, we will integrate liboffkv into
> Mesos. We are also ready to develop the library and consider any suggested
> improvements.
> *SAMUEL MARKS*
> Sydney Medical School | Westmead Institute for Medical Research |
> https://linkedin.com/in/samuelmarks
> Director | Sydney Scientific Foundation Ltd 
> | Offscale.io of Sydney Scientific Pty Ltd 
> *SYDNEY SCIENTIFIC FOUNDATION and THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY*
>
> PS: We will be offering similar contributions to Chronos
> , Marathon
> , Aurora
> , and related projects.
>