On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Soren Hansen so...@linux2go.dk wrote:
I'm sorry about my slow responses. For some reason, gmail didn't think
this was an important e-mail :(
2014-09-30 18:41 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05
2014-10-03 9:00 GMT+02:00 Michael Chapman wop...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Soren Hansen so...@linux2go.dk
wrote:
That said, there will certainly be situations where there'll be a
need for some sort of anti-entropy mechanism. It just so happens that
those situations already
I'm sorry about my slow responses. For some reason, gmail didn't think
this was an important e-mail :(
2014-09-30 18:41 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
How would I go about getting the
On 09/30/2014 02:03 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
Joins in Python-land.
I may very well be wrong(!), but
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
Joins in Python-land.
I may very well be wrong(!), but this statement makes it sound like you've
On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
Joins in Python-land.
I may very well be wrong(!), but
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-30 09:41:29 -0700:
On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-30 09:41:29 -0700:
A relational database was built for the above types of queries, and
that's why I said it's the best tool for the job *in this specific case*.
Now... that said...
Is it possible to go through the Nova schema and identify
2014-09-26 17:11 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
On 09/26/2014 06:45 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
Define best.
best == most appropriate.
#copout
--
Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer |
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer on
top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL Joins in
Python-land. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In Nova at least,
the SQL schema
On 09/26/2014 06:45 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer on
top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL Joins in
Python-land. I've said it before, and I'll say
On 09/12/2014 03:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-09-11 15:21:26 -0700:
On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
On 09/09/14 15:03, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting
Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
The final question is the one of arbitrary access to messages in the
queue (or queue if you prefer). Flavio indicated that this effectively
came for free with their implementation of Pub-Sub. IMHO it is
unnecessary and limits
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:46 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/09/2014 07:04 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
The questions now before us are:
- should OpenStack include, in the integrated release, a
messaging-as-a-service component?
I
On 09/12/2014 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
The final question is the one of arbitrary access to messages in the
queue (or queue if you prefer). Flavio indicated that this effectively
came for free with their implementation of
On 11/09/14 19:05, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 09/11/2014 04:09 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
Swift is the current exception here, but one could argue, and people
have[2], that Swift is also the only project that actually conforms to
our stated design tenets for OpenStack. I'd struggle to tell the Zaqar
folks
On 12/09/14 04:50, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
However, Zaqar also supports the Pub-Sub model of messaging. I believe,
but would like Flavio to confirm, that this is what is meant when the
Zaqar team say that Zaqar is about messaging in general and not just
On 09/12/2014 09:50 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Zaqar supports once and only once delivery.
For the transfer from Zaqar to consumers it does (providing the claim id
can be recovered). For transfer from producers to Zaqar I believe it is
more limited.
If the connection to Zaqar fails during a
On 09/12/2014 01:56 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/2014 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
The final question is the one of arbitrary access to messages in the
queue (or queue if you prefer). Flavio indicated that this
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-12 00:22:35 -0700:
On 09/12/2014 03:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-09-11 15:21:26 -0700:
On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On
On 04/09/14 08:14, Sean Dague wrote:
I've been one of the consistent voices concerned about a hard
requirement on adding NoSQL into the mix. So I'll explain that thinking
a bit more.
I feel like when the TC makes an integration decision previously this
has been about evaluating the project
On 09/09/14 15:03, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns
On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-09-11 15:21:26 -0700:
On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 19:04:58 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt s...@swiftstack.com wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me
On 09/10/2014 01:47 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt s...@swiftstack.com wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
does NOT need to diverge in technology in any
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Samuel Merritt wrote:
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
The questions now before us are:
- should OpenStack include, in the integrated release, a
messaging-as-a-service component?
I certainly think so. I've worked on a few reasonable-scale web applications,
On 09/10/2014 12:47 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
As was pointed out in the TC meeting today, Zaqar is (was?) actually
aiming to provide Messaging-as-a-Service -- not queueing as a service!
This is another way of saying it's more like email and less like
AMQP
The glossary[1] describes a
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
a. An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
early LBaaS packages)
b. A project which has lost its initial steam and further
investment is not foreseen
c.
-Original Message-
From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stef...@openstack.org]
Sent: 10 September 2014 19:29
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
the TC meeting
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
How
On 09/09/2014 07:04 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt s...@swiftstack.com
wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
On 09/10/2014 10:29 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
a. An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
early LBaaS packages)
b. A project which has lost its initial steam and
On 09/10/2014 12:56 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
I reject soundly and fundamentally the idea that Open Source projects
NEED a commercial ecosystem to provide solid quality software.
That's not what I said. I said that assuring the quality of code on a
public repository is not necessarily something
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
some comments hoping that it
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt s...@swiftstack.com wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
does NOT need to diverge in technology in any way, but that I've been
told that it needs to diverge
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths
kurt.griffi...@rackspace.com wrote:
[snip]
Does a Qpid/Rabbit/Kafka provisioning service make sense? Probably. Would
such a service totally overlap in terms of use-cases with Zaqar? Community
feedback suggests otherwise. Will there be some other
Excerpts from Devananda van der Veen's message of 2014-09-09 16:47:27 -0700:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt s...@swiftstack.com wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
does NOT need to
*should OpenStack include, in the integrated release,
a messaging-as-a-service component*
Assuming this is truly a question that represents where we are and not
exploratory of what we might want to address, I would say the answer is a
resounding no, as queuing is within the scope of what
Devananda,
While that is de rigueur today, it's actually at the core of the
current problem space. Blessing a project by integrating it is not a
scalable long-term solution. We don't have a model to integrate 1
project for the same space // of the same type, or to bless the
stability of a
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Boris Pavlovic bo...@pavlovic.me wrote:
Devananda,
While that is de rigueur today, it's actually at the core of the
current problem space. Blessing a project by integrating it is not a
scalable long-term solution. We don't have a model to integrate 1
project
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt s...@swiftstack.com wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
does NOT need to diverge in technology in any
On 09/04/2014 07:08 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 06:01:45 -0700:
On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the
Tim Bell wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
the TC meeting
Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
So
On 09/04/2014 09:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Thanks for your comments Gordon. I appreciate where you are coming from
and I think we are actually in agreement on a lot of things.
I just want to make it clear that from the very beginning of the project
the team has tried to communicate (but
On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
I think realistically a self certification process that would have
artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
lines of a baseball card interface with a short description of the
project, a list of the
On 09/04/2014 09:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Does a Qpid/Rabbit/Kafka provisioning service make sense? Probably.
I think something like that would be valuable, especially in conjunction
with some application layer proxying and mapping between 'virtual'
addresses/endpoints and specific
On 09/04/2014 01:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
https://dague.net/2014/08/26/openstack-as-layers/
Just wanted to say that I found this article very useful indeed and
agree with the points you make in it.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
2014-09-05 9:09 GMT-03:00 Sean Dague s...@dague.net:
On 09/05/2014 07:39 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague s...@dague.net wrote:
I think realistically a self certification process that would have
artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Thierry Carrez thie...@openstack.org
wrote:
Tim Bell wrote:
The one concern I have with a small core is that there is not an easy
way to assess the maturity of a project on stackforge. The stackforge
projects may be missing packaging, Red Hat testing, puppet
]
Sent: 05 September 2014 19:11
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during the
TC meeting
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Thierry Carrez
thie...@openstack.orgmailto:thie...@openstack.org wrote:
Tim
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
some comments hoping that it will help starting a discussion before
Hey Clint,
Thanks for reading, some comments in-line:
On 09/04/2014 10:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
[snip]
- Concern on should we really reinvent a queue system rather than
piggyback on one
As mentioned in the meeting on
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Thanks for writing this up, interesting read.
5. Ceilometer's recommended storage driver is still MongoDB, although
Ceilometer has now support for sqlalchemy. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
For sake of reference: Yes, MongoDB is currently the
On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
some comments hoping that it will help starting a discussion before the
next meeting. In
On 09/04/2014 01:15 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Thanks for writing this up, interesting read.
Thank you for your feedback :)
Some comments in-line.
5. Ceilometer's recommended storage driver is still MongoDB, although
Ceilometer has now support for
On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
some comments hoping that it will help starting a
Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
So, honestly, I'll probably remain -1 on the final integration vote, not
because Zaqar is bad, but because I'm feeling more firmly that for
OpenStack to not leave the small deployers behind we need to redefine
the tightly integrated piece of OpenStack to basically the
On 09/04/2014 04:59 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
So, honestly, I'll probably remain -1 on the final integration vote, not
because Zaqar is bad, but because I'm feeling more firmly that for
OpenStack to not leave the small deployers behind we need to redefine
the tightly
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 06:01:45 -0700:
On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 02:11:15 -0700:
Hey Clint,
Thanks for reading, some comments in-line:
On 09/04/2014 10:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
[snip]
- Concern on should we really reinvent a
Hi Flavio,
On 09/04/2014 08:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
- Concern on should we really reinvent a queue system rather than
piggyback on one
As mentioned in the meeting on Tuesday, Zaqar is not reinventing message
brokers. Zaqar provides a service akin to SQS from AWS with an OpenStack
flavor
-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
the TC meeting
Sean Dague wrote:
[...]
So, honestly, I'll
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Tim Bell tim.b...@cern.ch wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose
Thanks for your comments Gordon. I appreciate where you are coming from
and I think we are actually in agreement on a lot of things.
I just want to make it clear that from the very beginning of the project
the team has tried to communicate (but perhaps could have done a better
job at it) that we
67 matches
Mail list logo
