On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Krishna Raman <kra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Sam Alba <sam.a...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I wish we can make a decision during this meeting. Is it confirmed for >> Friday 9am pacific? > > > Friday 9am Pacific seems to be the best time for this meeting. Can we use > the #openstack-meeting channel for this? > If not, then I can find another channel. > > For the agenda, I propose > - going through https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service-api and > understand capabilities of all container technologies > + would like the experts on each of those technologies to fill us in > - go over the API proposal and see what we need to change.
I think it's too early to go through the API. Let's first go through all options discussed before to support containers in openstack compute: #1 Have this new compute service for containers (other than Nova) #2 Extend Nova virt API to support containers #3 Support containers API as a third API for Nova Depending how it goes, then it makes sense to do an overview of the API I think. What do you guys think? >> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 8:24 AM, Chuck Short <chuck.sh...@canonical.com> >> wrote: >> > Hi >> > >> > Has a decision happened when this meeting is going to take place, >> > assuming >> > it is still taking place tomorrow. >> > >> > Regards >> > chuck >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Krishna Raman <kra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> On Nov 18, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Russell Bryant <rbry...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 11/18/2013 06:30 PM, Dan Smith wrote: >> >> >> >> Not having been at the summit (maybe the next one), could somebody >> >> give a really short explanation as to why it needs to be a separate >> >> service? It sounds like it should fit within the Nova area. It is, >> >> after all, just another hypervisor type, or so it seems. >> >> >> >> >> >> But it's not just another hypervisor. If all you want from your >> >> containers is lightweight VMs, then nova is a reasonable place to put >> >> that (and it's there right now). If, however, you want to expose the >> >> complex and flexible attributes of a container, such as being able to >> >> overlap filesystems, have fine-grained control over what is shared with >> >> the host OS, look at the processes within a container, etc, then nova >> >> ends up needing quite a bit of change to support that. >> >> >> >> I think the overwhelming majority of folks in the room, after >> >> discussing >> >> it, agreed that Nova is infrastructure and containers is more of a >> >> platform thing. Making it a separate service lets us define a mechanism >> >> to manage these that makes much more sense than treating them like VMs. >> >> Using Nova to deploy VMs that run this service is the right approach, >> >> IMHO. Clayton put it very well, I think: >> >> >> >> If the thing you want to deploy has a kernel, then you need Nova. If >> >> your thing runs on a kernel, you want $new_service_name. >> >> >> >> I agree. >> >> >> >> Note that this is just another service under the compute project (or >> >> program, or whatever the correct terminology is this week). >> >> >> >> >> >> The Compute program is correct. That is established terminology as >> >> defined by the TC in the last cycle. >> >> >> >> So while >> >> distinct from Nova in terms of code, development should be tightly >> >> integrated until (and if at some point) it doesn't make sense. >> >> >> >> >> >> And it may share a whole bunch of the code. >> >> >> >> Another way to put this: The API requirements people have for >> >> containers include a number of features considered outside of the >> >> current scope of Nova (short version: Nova's scope stops before going >> >> *inside* the servers it creates, except file injection, which we plan >> >> to >> >> remove anyway). That presents a problem. A new service is one >> >> possible >> >> solution. >> >> >> >> My view of the outcome of the session was not "it *will* be a new >> >> service". Instead, it was, "we *think* it should be a new service, but >> >> let's do some more investigation to decide for sure". >> >> >> >> The action item from the session was to go off and come up with a >> >> proposal for what a new service would look like. In particular, we >> >> needed a proposal for what the API would look like. With that in hand, >> >> we need to come back and ask the question again of whether a new >> >> service >> >> is the right answer. >> >> >> >> I see 3 possible solutions here: >> >> >> >> 1) Expand the scope of Nova to include all of the things people want to >> >> be able to do with containers. >> >> >> >> This is my least favorite option. Nova is already really big. We've >> >> worked to split things out (Networking, Block Storage, Images) to keep >> >> it under control. I don't think a significant increase in scope is a >> >> smart move for Nova's future. >> >> >> >> 2) Declare containers as explicitly out of scope and start a new >> >> project >> >> with its own API. >> >> >> >> That is what is being proposed here. >> >> >> >> 3) Some middle ground that is a variation of #2. Consider Ironic. The >> >> idea is that Nova's API will still be used for basic provisioning, >> >> which >> >> Nova will implement by talking to Ironic. However, there are a lot of >> >> baremetal management things that don't fit in Nova at all, and those >> >> only exist in Ironic's API. >> >> >> >> I wanted to mention this option for completeness, but I don't actually >> >> think it's the right choice here. With Ironic you have a physical >> >> resource (managed by Ironic), and then instances of an image running on >> >> these physical resources (managed by Nova). >> >> >> >> With containers, there's a similar line. You have instances of >> >> containers (managed either by Nova or the new service) running on >> >> servers (managed by Nova). I think there is a good line for separating >> >> concerns, with a container service on top of Nova. >> >> >> >> >> >> Let's ask ourselves: How much overlap is there between the current >> >> compute API and a proposed containers API? Effectively, what's the >> >> diff? How much do we expect this diff to change in the coming years? >> >> >> >> The current diff demonstrates a significant clash with the current >> >> scope >> >> of Nova. I also expect a lot of innovation around containers in the >> >> next few years, which will result in wanting to do new cool things in >> >> the API. I feel that all of this justifies a new API service to best >> >> position ourselves for the long term. >> >> >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> We need to come up with the API first before we decide if this is a new >> >> service or just something that >> >> needs to be added to Nova, >> >> >> >> How about we have all interested parties meet on IRC or conf. call and >> >> discuss the suggested REST API, >> >> open questions and architecture. >> >> >> >> If you are interested please add your name to the participant list on >> >> https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/containers-service. >> >> >> >> I have also set up a doodle poll at http://doodle.com/w7y5qcdvq9i36757 >> >> to >> >> gather a times when a majority >> >> of us are available to discuss on IRC. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Krishna Raman >> >> >> >> PS: Sorry if you see this email twice. I am having some issues with >> >> list >> >> subscription. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Russell Bryant >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> >> >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > OpenStack-dev mailing list >> > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> @sam_alba >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenStack-dev mailing list >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > -- @sam_alba _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
