As a Murano team we will be happy to contribute to Glance. Our Murano metadata repository is a standalone component (with its own git repository)which is not tightly coupled with Murano itself. We can easily add our functionality to Glance as a new component\subproject.
Thanks Georgy On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya <vishvana...@gmail.com>wrote: > > On Dec 6, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote: > > > Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2013-12-05 21:32:54 -0800: > >> On 12/05/2013 04:25 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >>> Excerpts from Andrew Plunk's message of 2013-12-05 12:42:49 -0800: > >>>>> Excerpts from Randall Burt's message of 2013-12-05 09:05:44 -0800: > >>>>>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 10:10 AM, Clint Byrum <clint at fewbar.com> > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Excerpts from Monty Taylor's message of 2013-12-04 17:54:45 -0800: > >>>>>>>> Why not just use glance? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I've asked that question a few times, and I think I can collate the > >>>>>>> responses I've received below. I think enhancing glance to do these > >>>>>>> things is on the table: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1. Glance is for big blobs of data not tiny templates. > >>>>>>> 2. Versioning of a single resource is desired. > >>>>>>> 3. Tagging/classifying/listing/sorting > >>>>>>> 4. Glance is designed to expose the uploaded blobs to nova, not > users > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My responses: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> 1: Irrelevant. Smaller things will fit in it just fine. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Fitting is one thing, optimizations around particular assumptions > about the size of data and the frequency of reads/writes might be an issue, > but I admit to ignorance about those details in Glance. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Optimizations can be improved for various use cases. The design, > however, > >>>>> has no assumptions that I know about that would invalidate storing > blobs > >>>>> of yaml/json vs. blobs of kernel/qcow2/raw image. > >>>> > >>>> I think we are getting out into the weeds a little bit here. It is > important to think about these apis in terms of what they actually do, > before the decision of combining them or not can be made. > >>>> > >>>> I think of HeatR as a template storage service, it provides extra > data and operations on templates. HeatR should not care about how those > templates are stored. > >>>> Glance is an image storage service, it provides extra data and > operations on images (not blobs), and it happens to use swift as a backend. > >>>> > >>>> If HeatR and Glance were combined, it would result in taking two very > different types of data (template metadata vs image metadata) and mashing > them into one service. How would adding the complexity of HeatR benefit > Glance, when they are dealing with conceptually two very different types of > data? For instance, should a template ever care about the field "minRam" > that is stored with an image? Combining them adds a huge development > complexity with a very small operations payoff, and so Openstack is already > so operationally complex that HeatR as a separate service would be > knowledgeable. Only clients of Heat will ever care about data and > operations on templates, so I move that HeatR becomes it's own service, or > becomes part of Heat. > >>>> > >>> > >>> I spoke at length via G+ with Randall and Tim about this earlier today. > >>> I think I understand the impetus for all of this a little better now. > >>> > >>> Basically what I'm suggesting is that Glance is only narrow in scope > >>> because that was the only object that OpenStack needed a catalog for > >>> before now. > >>> > >>> However, the overlap between a catalog of images and a catalog of > >>> templates is quite comprehensive. The individual fields that matter to > >>> images are different than the ones that matter to templates, but that > >>> is a really minor detail isn't it? > >>> > >>> I would suggest that Glance be slightly expanded in scope to be an > >>> object catalog. Each object type can have its own set of fields that > >>> matter to it. > >>> > >>> This doesn't have to be a minor change to glance to still have many > >>> advantages over writing something from scratch and asking people to > >>> deploy another service that is 99% the same as Glance. > >> > >> My suggestion for long-term architecture would be to use Murano for > >> catalog/metadata information (for images/templates/whatever) and move > >> the block-streaming drivers into Cinder, and get rid of the Glance > >> project entirely. Murano would then become the catalog/registry of > >> objects in the OpenStack world, Cinder would be the thing that manages > >> and streams blocks of data or block devices, and Glance could go away. > >> Imagine it... OpenStack actually *reducing* the number of projects > >> instead of expanding! :) > >> > > > > Have we not learned our lesson with Nova-Net/Neutron yet? Rewrites of > > existing functionality are painful. > > > > The Murano-concerned people have already stated they are starting over > > on that catalog. > > > > I suggest they start over by expanding Glance's catalog. If the block > > streaming bits of Glance need to move somewhere else, that sounds like a > > completely separate concern that distracts from this point. > > > > And to be clear, (I think I will just stop talking as I think I've > > made this point), my point is, we have a catalog, let's make it better. > > +1 > > Vish > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > -- Georgy Okrokvertskhov Technical Program Manager, Cloud and Infrastructure Services, Mirantis http://www.mirantis.com Tel. +1 650 963 9828 Mob. +1 650 996 3284
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev