Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 11/10/2015 05:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Kevin Carter wrote: >>> I believe Clint already linked to >>> https://aphyr.com/posts/309-knossos-redis-and-linearizability or >>> similar - but 'known for general ease of use and reliability' is uhm, >>> a bold claim. Its worth comparing that (and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Sean Dague wrote: On 11/10/2015 05:12 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Kevin Carter wrote: I believe Clint already linked to https://aphyr.com/posts/309-knossos-redis-and-linearizability or similar - but 'known for general ease of use and reliability' is uhm, a bold claim. Its worth comparing that

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

. All said I'm very interested in a DLM solution and if there's anything I can do to help make it go please let me know. -- Kevin Carter IRC: cloudnull From: Robert Collins <robe...@robertcollins.net> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 12:55 AM To: Op

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

t. -- Kevin Carter IRC: cloudnull From: Clint Byrum <cl...@fewbar.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 2:21 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit Excerpts from Kevin

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Kevin Carter wrote: >> I believe Clint already linked to >> https://aphyr.com/posts/309-knossos-redis-and-linearizability or >> similar - but 'known for general ease of use and reliability' is uhm, >> a bold claim. Its worth comparing that (and the other redis writeups) >> to this one:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

/introduction > [2] - http://redis.io/topics/distlock > > -- > > Kevin Carter > IRC: cloudnull > > > > From: Fox, Kevin M <kevin@pnnl.gov> > Sent: Monday, November 9, 2015 1:54 PM > To: maishsk+openst...@maish

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit On 11/05/15 23:18, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > Your assuming there are only 2 choices, > zk or db+rabbit. I'm claiming both hare suboptimal at present. a 3rd

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Byrum [cl...@fewbar.com] Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:44 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2015-11-04 14:32:42 -0800: To clarify that statement a little more, Spe

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

ple and small for that case, then scale with > switching out pieces as needed does have some tangible benefits. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ________ > From: Maish Saidel-Keesing [mais...@maishsk.com] > Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 11:35 AM > To

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

. > > Being able to keep it simple and small for that case, then scale with > switching out pieces as needed does have some tangible benefits. > > Thanks, > Kevin > ________ > From: Maish Saidel-Keesing [mais...@maishsk.com] > Sent: Monday, Novem

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 10 November 2015 at 19:24, Kevin Carter wrote: > Hello all, > > The rational behind using a solution like zookeeper makes sense however in > reviewing the thread I found myself asking if there was a better way to > address the problem without the addition of a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

iling List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit Dedicating 3 controller nodes in a small cloud is not the best allocation of resources sometimes. Your thinking of medium to large clouds. Small producti

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

> -Original Message- > From: Clint Byrum [mailto:cl...@fewbar.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 05, 2015 3:19 PM > To: openstack-dev > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager > discussion @ the summit > > Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Robert Collins wrote: In the session we were told that zookeeper is already used in CI jobs for ceilometer (was this wrong?) and thats why we figured it made a sane default for devstack. For clarity: What ceilometer (actually gnocchi) is doing is using tooz in CI

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 11/05/2015 06:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hayes, Graham wrote: >> On 04/11/15 20:04, Ed Leafe wrote: >>> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 11/05/2015 03:08 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Robert Collins wrote: > >> In the session we were told that zookeeper is already used in CI jobs >> for ceilometer (was this wrong?) and thats why we figured it made a >> sane default for devstack. > > For clarity: What ceilometer

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 04/11/15 20:04, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >>> >>> Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: >>> >>> https://review.openstack.org/241040 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dims >> >> I thought

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Sean Dague wrote: On 11/05/2015 06:00 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Hayes, Graham wrote: On 04/11/15 20:04, Ed Leafe wrote: On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 5 November 2015 at 11:32, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > To clarify that statement a little more, > > Speaking only for myself as an op, I don't want to support yet one more > snowflake in a sea of snowflakes, that works differently then all the rest, > without a very good reason.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2015-11-04 14:32:42 -0800: > To clarify that statement a little more, > > Speaking only for myself as an op, I don't want to support yet one more > snowflake in a sea of snowflakes, that works differently then all the rest, > without a very good reason. >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2015-11-05 13:18:13 -0800: > Your assuming there are only 2 choices, > zk or db+rabbit. I'm claiming both hare suboptimal at present. a 3rd might > be needed. Though even with its flaws, the db+rabbit choice has a few > benefits too. > Well, I'm

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

: Thursday, November 05, 2015 11:44 AM To: openstack-dev Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit Excerpts from Fox, Kevin M's message of 2015-11-04 14:32:42 -0800: > To clarify that statement a little more, > > Speaking only for mysel

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Sean Dague wrote: On 11/05/2015 03:08 AM, Chris Dent wrote: Outside of CI it is possible to deploy ceilo, aodh and gnocchi to use tooz for coordinating group partitioning in active-active HA setups and shared locks. Again the standard deploy for that has been to use redis

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

I will be working on adding the Consul driver to Tooz [1]. -Vilobh [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/python-tooz/+spec/add-consul-driver On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Mark Voelker wrote: > On Nov 4, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Graham, Agree. Hence the Tooz as the abstraction layer. Folks are welcome to write new drivers or fix existing drivers for Tooz where needed. -- Dims On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 04/11/15 20:04, Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 11/04/2015 03:57 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Ed Leafe wrote: >> On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >>> Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: >>> >>> https://review.openstack.org/241040 >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Dims >> >> I thought

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 5 November 2015 at 09:02, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/241040 >> >> Thanks, >> Dims > > I thought that the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On Nov 4, 2015, at 3:17 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > What I don't want to see happen is we get into a deadlock where there's > a large portion of users who can't upgrade and no driver to support them. > So lets stay ahead of the problem, and get a set of drivers that works > for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Ed Leafe wrote: On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: https://review.openstack.org/241040 Thanks, Dims I thought that the operators at that session made it very clear that they would

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 04/11/15 20:04, Ed Leafe wrote: > On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: >> >> https://review.openstack.org/241040 >> >> Thanks, >> Dims > > I thought that the operators at that session

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 11/04/2015 04:09 PM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: Graham, Agree. Hence the Tooz as the abstraction layer. Folks are welcome to write new drivers or fix existing drivers for Tooz where needed. Yes. This is correct. We cannot grow a hard depend on a Java thing, but optional depends are ok - and

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

[e...@leafe.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2015 12:02 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas <dava...@gmail.com>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2015-11-04 12:57:53 -0800: > Ed Leafe wrote: > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > >> Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: > >> > >> https://review.openstack.org/241040 > >> > >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-04 21:17:15 +: > Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2015-11-04 12:57:53 -0800: > > Ed Leafe wrote: > > > On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > >> Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On Nov 4, 2015, at 4:41 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > Excerpts from Clint Byrum's message of 2015-11-04 21:17:15 +: >> Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2015-11-04 12:57:53 -0800: >>> Ed Leafe wrote: On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On Nov 3, 2015, at 6:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: > > https://review.openstack.org/241040 > > Thanks, > Dims I thought that the operators at that session made it very clear that they would *not*

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Thanks Dims, +2 On 11/03/2015 07:45 AM, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: > > https://review.openstack.org/241040 > > Thanks, > Dims > > > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: >> Thanks

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Here's a Devstack review for zookeeper in support of this initiative: https://review.openstack.org/241040 Thanks, Dims On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 11:05 PM, Joshua Harlow wrote: > Thanks robert, > > I've started to tweak https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209661/ with regard >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 15:26 Nov 03, Robert Collins wrote: > Hi, at the summit we had a big session on distributed lock managers (DLMs). > > I'd just like to highlight the conclusions we came to in the session ( > https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cross-project-dlm > ) Also Cinder will be spearheading

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Thanks robert, I've started to tweak https://review.openstack.org/#/c/209661/ with regard to the outcome of that (at least to cover the basics)... Should be finished up soon (I hope). Robert Collins wrote: Hi, at the summit we had a big session on distributed lock managers (DLMs). I'd just

[openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

Hi, at the summit we had a big session on distributed lock managers (DLMs). I'd just like to highlight the conclusions we came to in the session ( https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/mitaka-cross-project-dlm ) Firstly OpenStack projects that want to use a DLM can make it a hard dependency.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all] Outcome of distributed lock manager discussion @ the summit

On 03/11/2015 1:28 PM, "Robert Collins" wrote: > > Hi, at the summit we had a big session on distributed lock managers (DLMs). Awesome. > > I'd just like to highlight the conclusions we came to in the session ( >