On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 4:32 AM, Gary Kotton <gkot...@vmware.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> I am just relaying pain-points that we encountered in neutron. As I have
> said below it makes the development process a lot quicker for people
> working on external drivers. I personally believe that it fragments the
> community and feel that the external drivers loose the community
> contributions and inputs.
> Thanks
> Gary
>
> I find it unfair to say that the decomposition in Neutron caused
fragmentation. As of Kilo-2, we had 48 drivers/plugins in-tree in Neutron,
with another 10 or so proposed for Kilo. It's not scalable to continue down
that path! Further, most of those drivers/plugins were upstream but the
contributors were not really contributing to Neutron outside of their own
plugins/drivers. The decomposition lets them contribute and merge where
they are already contributing: In their own plugins/drivers. It also
removes a lot of code from Neutron which most core reviewers could never
test or run due to lacking proprietary hardware or software. All of these
reasons were in the decomposition spec [1].

I've not heard from anyone else who thinks the decomposition is a bad idea
or is not going well in practice. The opposite has actually been true:
Everyone has been happy with it's execution and the results it's allowing.
I credit Armando for his great work leading this effort. It's been a huge
effort but the results have been pretty amazing.

Thanks,
Kyle

[1]
http://specs.openstack.org/openstack/neutron-specs/specs/kilo/core-vendor-decomposition.html

On 2/28/15, 7:58 PM, "Clint Byrum" <cl...@fewbar.com> wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure I understand your statement Gary. If Ironic defines
> >what is effectively a plugin API, and the vendor drivers are careful
> >to utilize that API properly, the two sets of code can be released
> >entirely independent of one another. This is how modules work in the
> >kernel, X.org drivers work, and etc. etc. Of course, vendors could be
> >irresponsible and break compatibility with older releases of Ironic,
> >but that is not in their best interest, so I don't see why anybody would
> >need to tightly couple.
> >
> >As far as where generic code goes, that seems obvious: it all has to go
> >into Ironic and be hidden behind the plugin API.
> >
> >Excerpts from Gary Kotton's message of 2015-02-28 09:28:55 -0800:
> >> Hi,
> >> There are pros and cons for what you have mentioned. My concern, and I
> >>mentioned them with the neutron driver decomposition, is that we are are
> >>loosing the community inputs and contributions. Yes, one can certainly
> >>move faster and freer (which is a huge pain point in the community). How
> >>are generic code changes percolated to your repo? Do you have an
> >>automatic CI that detects this? Please note that when itonic release you
> >>will need to release your repo so that the relationship is 1:1...
> >> Thanks
> >> Gary
> >>
> >> From: Ramakrishnan G
> >><rameshg87.openst...@gmail.com<mailto:rameshg87.openst...@gmail.com>>
> >> Reply-To: OpenStack List
> >><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.o
> >>rg>>
> >> Date: Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM
> >> To: OpenStack List
> >><openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:
> openstack-dev@lists.openstack.o
> >>rg>>
> >> Subject: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Adding vendor drivers in Ironic
> >>
> >>
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >> This is about adding vendor drivers in Ironic.
> >>
> >> In Kilo, we have many vendor drivers getting added in Ironic which is a
> >>very good thing.  But something I noticed is that, most of these reviews
> >>have lots of hardware-specific code in them.  This is something most of
> >>the other Ironic folks cannot understand unless they go and read the
> >>hardware manuals of the vendor hardware about what is being done.
> >>Otherwise we just need to blindly mark the file as reviewed.
> >>
> >> Now let me pitch in with our story about this.  We added a vendor
> >>driver for HP Proliant hardware (the *ilo drivers in Ironic).  Initially
> >>we proposed this same thing in Ironic that we will add all the hardware
> >>specific code in Ironic itself under the directory drivers/modules/ilo.
> >>But few of the Ironic folks didn't agree on this (Devananda especially
> >>who is from my company :)). So we created a new module proliantutils,
> >>hosted in our own github and recently moved it to stackforge.  We gave a
> >>limited set of APIs for Ironic to use - like get_host_power_status(),
> >>set_host_power(), get_one_time_boot(), set_one_time_boot(), etc. (Entire
> >>list is here
> >>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_stackforg
> >>e_proliantutils_blob_master_proliantutils_ilo_operations.py&d=AwICAg&c=Sq
> >>cl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8YTeq9
> >>N3-diTlNj4GyNc&m=QRyrevJwoHB6GFxiTDorDRShZ79rnf-SwtdVwGiYfcc&s=e9_q3eOLqT
> >>eI3oNwT_0fur3qzpFLUy9wxVPEjujfAMs&e=
> >><
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_stackfor
> >>ge_proliantutils_blob_master_proliantutils_ilo_operations.py&d=AwMFaQ&c=S
> >>qcl0Ez6M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8YTeq
> >>9N3-diTlNj4GyNc&m=m5_FxZnmz3
> > cyIvavSV
> >
> >DImH6xLR79L-svbcYKkjdcnb8&s=fjlOB2ORYcne-cyYnZJO8bdpi4J8rbfCAbmciPllmFI&e=
> >>).
> >>
> >> We have only seen benefits in doing it.  Let me bring in some examples:
> >>
> >> 1) We tried to add support for some lower version of servers.  We could
> >>do this without making any changes in Ironic (Review in proliantutils
> >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/153945/)
> >> 2) We are adding support for newer models of servers (earlier we use to
> >>talk to servers in protocol called RIBCL, newer servers we will use a
> >>protocol called RIS) - We could do this with just 14 lines of actual
> >>code change in Ironic (this was needed mainly because we didn't think we
> >>will have to use a new protocol itself when we started) -
> >>https://review.openstack.org/#/c/154403/
> >>
> >> Now talking about the advantages of putting hardware-specific code in
> >>Ironic:
> >>
> >> 1) It's reviewed by Openstack community and tested:
> >> No. I doubt if I throw in 600 lines of new iLO specific code that is
> >>here
> >>(
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_stackfor
> >>ge_proliantutils_blob_master_proliantutils_ilo_ris.py&d=AwICAg&c=Sqcl0Ez6
> >>M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8YTeq9N3-diT
> >>lNj4GyNc&m=QRyrevJwoHB6GFxiTDorDRShZ79rnf-SwtdVwGiYfcc&s=tEA3ZOH2Gu6GxHBG
> >>PfPB0x9LeHuMcYAcDbqbQyPVHZA&e=
> >><
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_stackfor
> >>ge_proliantutils_blob_master_proliantutils_ilo_ris.py&d=AwMFaQ&c=Sqcl0Ez6
> >>M0X8aeM67LKIiDJAXVeAw-YihVMNtXt-uEs&r=VlZxHpZBmzzkWT5jqz9JYBk8YTeq9N3-diT
> >>lNj4GyNc&m=m5_FxZnmz3cyIvavSVDImH6xLR79L-svbcYKkjdcnb8&s=vYNQ8MopljQOqje3
> >>T_aIhtw0oZPK4tFHGnlcbBH6wac&e=>) for Ironic folks, they will hardly take
> >>a look at it.  And regarding testing, it's not tested in the gate unless
> >>we have a 3rd party CI for it.  [We (iLO drivers) also don't have 3rd
> >>party CI right now, but we are working on it.]
> >>
> >> 2) Everything gets packaged into distributions automatically:
> >> Now the hardware-specific code that we add in Ironic under
> >>drivers/modules/<vendor>/ will get packaged into distributions, but this
> >>code in turn will have dependencies  which needs to be installed
> >>manually by the operator (I assume vendor specific dependencies are not
> >>considered by Linux distributions while packaging Openstack Ironic).
> >>Anyone installing Ironic and wanting to manage my company's servers will
> >>again need to install these dependencies manually.  Why not install the
> >>wrapper if there is one too.
> >>
> >> I assume we only get these advantages by moving all of
> >>hardware-specific code to a wrapper module in stackforge and just
> >>exposing some APIs for Ironic to use:
> >> * Ironic code would be much cleaner and easier to maintain
> >> * Any changes related to your hardware - support for newer hardware,
> >>bug fixes in particular models of hardware, would be very easy. You
> >>don't need to change Ironic code for that. You could just fix the bug in
> >>your module, release a new version and ask your users to install a newer
> >>version of the module.
> >> * python-fooclient could be used outside Ironic to easily manage foo
> >>servers.
> >> * Openstack CI for free if you are in stackforge - unit tests, flake
> >>tests, doc generation, merge, pypi release everything handled
> >>automatically.
> >>
> >> I don't see any disadvantages.
> >>
> >> Now regarding the time taken to do this, if you have all the code ready
> >>now in Ironic (which assume you will already have), perhaps it will take
> >>a day to do this - half a day for putting into a separate module in
> >>python/github and half a day for stackforge. The request to add
> >>stackforge should get approved in the same day (if everything is
> >>all-right).
> >>
> >> Let me know all of your thoughts on this.  If we agree, I feel we
> >>should have some documentation on it in our Ironic docs directory.
> >>
> >> Thanks for reading :)
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ramesh
> >
> >__________________________________________________________________________
> >OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >Unsubscribe:
> openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> >http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to