On 06/27/2018 07:23 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 27/06/18 07:55, Jay Pipes wrote:
Above, I was saying that the scope of the *OpenStack* community is already too broad (IMHO). An example of projects that have made the *OpenStack* community too broad are purpose-built telco applications like Tacker [1] and Service Function Chaining. [2]

I've also argued in the past that all distro- or vendor-specific deployment tools (Fuel, Triple-O, etc [3]) should live outside of OpenStack because these projects are more products and the relentless drive of vendor product management (rightfully) pushes the scope of these applications to gobble up more and more feature space that may or may not have anything to do with the core OpenStack mission (and have more to do with those companies' product roadmap).

I'm still sad that we've never managed to come up with a single way to install OpenStack. The amount of duplicated effort expended on that problem is mind-boggling. At least we tried though. Excluding those projects from the community would have just meant giving up from the beginning.

You have to have motivation from vendors in order to achieve said single way of installing OpenStack. I gave up a long time ago on distros and vendors to get behind such an effort.

Where vendors see $$$, they will attempt to carve out value differentiation. And value differentiation leads to, well, differences, naturally.

And, despite what some might misguidedly think, Kubernetes has no single installation method. Their *official* setup/install page is here:


It lists no fewer than *37* (!) different ways of installing Kubernetes, and I'm not even including anything listed in the "Custom Solutions" section.

I think Thierry's new map, that collects installer services in a separate bucket (that may eventually come with a separate git namespace) is a helpful way of communicating to users what's happening without forcing those projects outside of the community.

Sure, I agree the separate bucket is useful, particularly when paired with information that allows operators to know how stable and/or bleeding edge the code is expected to be -- you know, those "tags" that the TC spent time curating.

So to answer your question:

<jaypipes> zaneb: yeah... nobody I know who argues for a small stable core (in Nova) has ever said there should be fewer higher layer services.
<jaypipes> zaneb: I'm not entirely sure where you got that idea from.

Note the emphasis on *Nova* above?

Also note that when I've said that *OpenStack* should have a smaller mission and scope, that doesn't mean that higher-level services aren't necessary or wanted.

Thank you for saying this, and could I please ask you to repeat this disclaimer whenever you talk about a smaller scope for OpenStack.

Yes. I shall shout it from the highest mountains. [1]

Because for those of us working on higher-level services it feels like there has been a non-stop chorus (both inside and outside the project) of people wanting to redefine OpenStack as something that doesn't include us.

I've said in the past (on Twitter, can't find the link right now, but it's out there somewhere) something to the effect of "at some point, someone just needs to come out and say that OpenStack is, at its core, Nova, Neutron, Keystone, Glance and Cinder".

Perhaps this is what you were recollecting. I would use a different phrase nowadays to describe what I was thinking with the above.

I would say instead "Nova, Neutron, Cinder, Keystone and Glance [2] are a definitive lower level of an OpenStack deployment. They represent a set of required integrated services that supply the most basic infrastructure for datacenter resource management when deploying OpenStack."

Note the difference in wording. Instead of saying "OpenStack is X", I'm saying "These particular services represent a specific layer of an OpenStack deployment".

Nowadays, I would further add something to the effect of "Depending on the particular use cases and workloads the OpenStack deployer wishes to promote, an additional layer of services provides workload orchestration and workflow management capabilities. This layer of services include Heat, Mistral, Tacker, Service Function Chaining, Murano, etc".

Does that provide you with some closure on this feeling of "non-stop chorus" of exclusion that you mentioned above?

The reason I haven't dropped this discussion is because I really want to know if _all_ of those people were actually talking about something else (e.g. a smaller scope for Nova), or if it's just you. Because you and I are in complete agreement that Nova has grown a lot of obscure capabilities that make it fiendishly difficult to maintain, and that in many cases might never have been requested if we'd had higher-level tools that could meet the same use cases by composing simpler operations.

IMHO some of the contributing factors to that were:

* The aforementioned hostility from some quarters to the existence of higher-level projects in OpenStack. * The ongoing hostility of operators to deploying any projects outside of Keystone/Nova/Glance/Neutron/Cinder (*still* seen playing out in the Barbican vs. Castellan debate, where we can't even correct one of OpenStack's original sins and bake in a secret store - something k8s managed from day one - because people don't want to install another ReST API even over a backend that they'll already have to install anyway). * The illegibility of public Nova interfaces to potential higher-level tools.

I would like to point something else out here. Something that may not be pleasant to confront.

Heat's competition (for resources and mindshare) is Kubernetes, plain and simple.

Heat's competition is not other OpenStack projects.

Nova's competition is not Kubernetes (despite various people continuing to say that it is).

Nova is not an orchestration system. Never was and (as long as I'm kicking and screaming) never will be.

Nova's primary competition is:

* Stand-alone Ironic
* oVirt and stand-alone virsh callers
* Parts of VMWare vCenter [3]
* MaaS in some respects
* The *compute provisioning* parts of EC2, Azure, and GCP

This is why there is a Kubernetes OpenStack cloud provider plugin [4].

This plugin uses Nova [5] (which can potentially use Ironic), Cinder, Keystone and Neutron to deploy kubelets to act as nodes in a Kubernetes cluster and load balancer objects to act as the proxies that k8s itself uses when deploying Pods and Services.

Heat's architecture, template language and object constructs are in direct competition with Kubernetes' API and architecture, with the primary difference being a VM-centric [6] vs. a container-centric object model.

Heat's template language is similar to Helm's chart template YAML structure [7], and with Heat's evolution to the "convergence model", Heat's architecture actually got closer to Kubernetes' architecture: that of continually attempting to converge an observed state with a desired state.

So, what is Heat to do?

The hype and marketing machine is never-ending, I'm afraid. [8]

I'm not sure there's actually anything that can be done about this. Perhaps it is a fait accomplis that Kubernetes/Helm will/has become synonymous with "orchestration of things". Perhaps not. I'm not an oracle, unfortunately.

Maybe the only thing that Heat can do to fend off the coming doom is to make a case that Heat's performance, reliability, feature set or integration with OpenStack's other services make it a better candidate for orchestrating virtual machine or baremetal workloads on an OpenStack deployment than Kubernetes is.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news,

[1] I live in Florida, though, which has no mountains. But, when I visit, say, North Carolina, I shall certainly shout it from their mountains.

[2] some would also say Castellan, Ironic and Designate belong here.

[3] Though VMWare is still trying to be everything that certain IT administrators ever needed, including orchestration, backup services, block storage pooling, high availability, quota management, etc etc

[4] https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/cloud-providers/#openstack

[5] https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/92b81114f43f3ca74988194406957a5d1ffd1c5d/pkg/cloudprovider/providers/openstack/openstack.go#L377

[6] The fact that Heat started as a CloudFormation API clone gave it its VM-centricity.

[7] https://github.com/kubernetes/helm/blob/master/docs/chart_template_guide/index.md

[8] The Kubernetes' machine has essentially decimated all the other "orchestration of things" projects' resources and mindshare, including a number of them that were very well architected, well coded, and well documented:

* Mesos with Marathon/Aurora
* Rancher
* OpenShift (you know, the original, original one...)
* Nomad
* Docker Swarm/Compose

OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Reply via email to