On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Qiming Teng <teng...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Auto-Scaling is an important feature supported by Heat and needed by
> many users we talked to.  There are two flavors of AutoScalingGroup
> resources in Heat today: the AWS-based one and the Heat native one.  As
> more requests coming in, the team has proposed to separate auto-scaling
> support into a separate service so that people who are interested in it
> can jump onto it.  At the same time, Heat engine (especially the resource
> type code) will be drastically simplified.  The separated AS service
> could move forward more rapidly and efficiently.
>
> This work was proposed a while ago with the following wiki and
> blueprints (mostly approved during Havana cycle), but the progress is
> slow.  A group of developers now volunteer to take over this work and
> move it forward.
>

Thank you for taking on this big project!


>
> wiki: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Heat/AutoScaling
> BPs:
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-lib-db
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-lib
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-engine-db
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-engine
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/autoscaling-api
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/autoscaling-api-client
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-api-group-resource
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-api-policy-resource
>  -
> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/as-api-webhook-trigger-resource
>  - https://blueprints.launchpad.net/heat/+spec/autoscaling-api-resources
>
> Once this whole thing lands, Heat engine will talk to the AS engine in
> terms of ResourceGroup, ScalingPolicy, Webhooks.  Heat engine won't care
> how auto-scaling is implemented although the AS engine may in turn ask
> Heat to create/update stacks for scaling's purpose.  In theory, AS
> engine can create/destroy resources by directly invoking other OpenStack
> services.  This new AutoScaling service may eventually have its own DB,
> engine, API, api-client.  We can definitely aim high while work hard on
> real code.
>

Yes, I think AS is the last major bit of code that needs to be moved out
into its own
service. Tho' hopefully still using Heat to orchestrate.


>
> After reviewing the BPs/Wiki and some communication, we get two options
> to push forward this.  I'm writing this to solicit ideas and comments
> from the community.
>
> Option A: Top-Down Quick Split
> ------------------------------
>
> This means we will follow a roadmap shown below, which is not 100%
> accurate yet and very rough:
>
>   1) Get the separated REST service in place and working
>   2) Switch Heat resources to use the new REST service
>
> Pros:
>   - Separate code base means faster review/commit cycle
>   - Less code churn in Heat
> Cons:
>   - A new service need to be installed/configured/launched
>   - Need commitments from dedicated, experienced developers from very
>     beginning
>
> Option B: Bottom-Up Slow Growth
> -------------------------------
>
> The roadmap is more conservative, with many (yes, many) incremental
> patches to migrate things carefully.
>
>   1) Separate some of the autoscaling logic into libraries in Heat
>   2) Augment heat-engine with new AS RPCs
>   3) Switch AS related resource types to use the new RPCs
>   4) Add new REST service that also talks to the same RPC
>      (create new GIT repo, API endpoint and client lib...)
>
> Pros:
>   - Less risk breaking user lands with each revision well tested
>   - More smooth transition for users in terms of upgrades
>
> Cons:
>   - A lot of churn within Heat code base, which means long review cycles
>   - Still need commitments from cores to supervise the whole process
>
>

At summit people were leaning towards "B", but I am very tempted by the
potential speed of development of "A" and the reduced code churn on the heat
repo (assuming we pull it out into a new repo). Given the other code churn
going on in our code base (convergence) it might make non stop AS rework
difficult to manage.



> There could be option C, D... but the two above are what we came up with
> during the discussion.
>
> Another important thing we talked about is about the open discussion on
> this.  OpenStack Wiki seems a good place to document settled designs but
> not for interactive discussions.  Probably we should leverage etherpad
> and the mailinglist when moving forward.  Suggestions on this are also
> welcomed.
>

I think a mixture of here (mailing list) and the weekly meeting should be ok
to getting some consensus about the way forward.

-Angus


>
> Thanks.
>
> Regards,
>  Qiming
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

Reply via email to