On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Steve Gordon <sgor...@redhat.com> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "henry hly" <henry4...@gmail.com> >> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" >> <firstname.lastname@example.org> >> >> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Dan Smith <d...@danplanet.com> >> wrote: >> >> [joehuang] Could you pls. make it more clear for the deployment >> >> mode >> >> of cells when used for globally distributed DCs with single API. >> >> Do >> >> you mean cinder/neutron/glance/ceilometer will be shared by all >> >> cells, and use RPC for inter-dc communication, and only support >> >> one >> >> vendor's OpenStack distribution? How to do the cross data center >> >> integration and troubleshooting with RPC if the >> >> driver/agent/backend(storage/network/sever) from different vendor. >> > >> > Correct, cells only applies to single-vendor distributed >> > deployments. In >> > both its current and future forms, it uses private APIs for >> > communication between the components, and thus isn't suited for a >> > multi-vendor environment. >> > >> > Just MHO, but building functionality into existing or new >> > components to >> > allow deployments from multiple vendors to appear as a single API >> > endpoint isn't something I have much interest in. >> > >> > --Dan >> > >> >> Even with the same distribution, cell still face many challenges >> across multiple DC connected with WAN. Considering OAM, it's easier >> to >> manage autonomous systems connected with external northband interface >> across remote sites, than a single monolithic system connected with >> internal RPC message. > > The key question here is this primarily the role of OpenStack or an external > cloud management platform, and I don't profess to know the answer. What do > people use (workaround or otherwise) for these use cases *today*? Another > question I have is, one of the stated use cases is for managing OpenStack > clouds from multiple vendors - is the implication here that some of these > have additional divergent API extensions or is the concern solely the > incompatibilities inherent in communicating using the RPC mechanisms? If > there are divergent API extensions, how is that handled from a proxying point > of view if not all underlying OpenStack clouds necessarily support it (I > guess same applies when using distributions without additional extensions but > of different versions - e.g. Icehouse vs Juno which I believe was also a > targeted use case?)?
It's not about divergent northband API extension. Services between Openstack projects are SOA based, this is a vertical splitting, so when building large and distributed system (whatever it is) with horizontal splitting, shouldn't we prefer clear and stable RESTful interface between these building blocks? > >> Although Cell did some separation and modulation (not to say it's >> still internal RPC across WAN), they leaves cinder, neutron, >> ceilometer. Shall we wait for all these projects to re-factor with >> Cell-like hierarchy structure, or adopt a more loose coupled way, to >> distribute them into autonomous units at the basis of the whole >> Openstack (except Keystone which can handle multiple region >> naturally)? > > Similarly though, is the intent with Cascading that each new project would > have to also implement and provide a proxy for use in these deployments? One > of the challenges with maintaining/supporting the existing Cells > implementation has been that it's effectively it's own thing and as a result > it is often not considered when adding new functionality. Yes we need a new proxy, but nova proxy is just a new type of virt driver, neutron proxy a new type of agent, cinder proxy a new type of volume store...They just utilize existing standard driver/agent mechanism, no influence on other code in tree. > >> As we can see, compared with Cell, much less work is needed to build >> a >> Cascading solution, No patch is needed except Neutron (waiting some >> upcoming features not landed in Juno), nearly all work lies in the >> proxy, which is in fact another kind of driver/agent. > > Right, but the proxies still appear to be a not insignificant amount of code > - is the intent not that the proxies would eventually reside within the > relevant projects? I've been assuming yes but I am wondering if this was an > incorrect assumption on my part based on your comment. > > Thanks, > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStackemail@example.com > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStackfirstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev