Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-30 Thread Julien Danjou
On Mon, Sep 29 2014, Morgan Fainberg wrote:

 The big issue you're going to run into is locking. The indexes need to have
 a distributed lock that guarantees that each index is read/updated/released
 atomically (similar to the SQL transaction). The way memcache and redis
 handle this is by trying to add a record that is based on the index record
 name and if that add fails (already exists) we assume the referenced
 record is locked. We automatically timeout the lock after a period of time.

For distributed locking, using tooz¹ could solve that issue.


¹  http://tooz.readthedocs.org/en/latest/

-- 
Julien Danjou
/* Free Software hacker
   http://julien.danjou.info */


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-30 Thread Morgan Fainberg
Comments in-line.

-Original Message-
From: Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: September 29, 2014 at 21:52:20
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing 
tokens in Swift?

 +1 Lets not continue to expand the usage of persisted tokens :-/

We can look at moving away from persisted tokens, but as of the Kilo cycle 
there is no plan to eliminate UUID tokens (or PKI/PKIZ tokens for that matter). 
This means that we will need to continue to support them. If there is a 
legitimate desire to utilize swift or something similar and make this 
experience better, it behooves us to consider accepting these improvements. I 
believe that non-persistent tokens are a great place to strive for, but it 
won’t meet every deployment need. Moreover, currently PKI tokens (the 
“persistent-less” capable version) adds significant overhead to each request. 
While 5k-10k of data doesn’t seem like a lot, when there is a large volume of 
actions taken it adds up fast. This is putting the onus on the end user to 
acquire the “authorization” and transmit that same information over and over 
again to each of the APIs (especially in the swift use-case of many, many, many 
small object requests). 5-10k for a request consisting of a few hundred bytes 
is a significant overhead. Asking a service local to your datacenter might be 
in some cases more efficient and produce less edge traffic.

There is a reason why websites often use separate domains (top-level) for their 
CDNs rather than just sourcing from the primary domain. This is to (especially 
in the case of large cookies such as are generated by Social Media sites) avoid 
having to transit the primary user cookie when gathering an asset, especially 
if that asset is publicly viewable. 

 We should be trying to move away from such types of persistence and its 
 associated complexity  
 IMHO. Most major websites don't need to have tokens that are saved around 
 regions in there  
 internal backend databases, just so people can use a REST webservice (or a 
 website...)  
 so I would hope that we don't need to (if it works for major websites why 
 doesn't it work  
 for us?).

As of today, PKI tokens (and even UUID token bodies) convey a lot of 
information. In fact, the tokens convey all the information (except if the 
token is revoked) needed to interact with the API endpoint. A lot of the “big” 
web apps will not encode all of that information into the signed cookie, some 
of that information can be sourced directly (often things like 
ACL-like-constructs or RBAC information won’t be in the cookie itself). PKI 
tokens are also significantly more difficult to deploy (needing certificates, 
CAs, and ensuring everything is in sync is definitely more work than saying 
“talk to URL xxx and ask if the token is valid”; you’re trading one set of 
operational concerns and scaling points for another).

Now if we start looking at OAuth and some of the other SSO technology we start 
getting a little bit closer to what we need to be able to eliminate the backing 
store with the exception of two critical items:

1) OAuth-type workflow would be a reauthorization for each endpoint (provided 
they are on separate domains/hosts/etc, which is the case for each of our 
services). You don’t (for example) Authenticate with UbuntuOne for 
https://review.openstack.org and without re-authenticating go to the wiki pages 
and edit the wiki. The wiki, while it uses the same authentication source, same 
identity source, and is even on an associated host/domain, requires a re-auth 
to use.

If you were to get an SSO login to Keystone and then each endpoint requires 
another bounce back to Keystone for AuthZ it isn’t really making the REST API 
any more usable nor making the user experience any better.

2) All of the OpenStack specific permissions are not necessarily conveyed by 
the Identity Provider (Keystone is not typically the Identity provider in this 
case), and most Identity Providers do not have the concept of Projects, 
Domains, or even Roles that are always going to make sense within OpenStack. 
We’re still back to needing to ask for information from Keystone.


 My 2 cents is that we should really think about why this is needed and why we 
 can't operate  
 using signed-cookie like mechanisms (after all it works for everyone else). 
 If cross-region  
 tokens are a problem, then maybe we should solve the root of the issue 
 (having a token that  
 works across regions) so that no replication is needed at all…

With PKI tokens (if you share the signing certificate) it is possible to handle 
cross region support. There are some limitations here (such as possibly needing 
to replicate the Identity/Assignment information between regions so an Auth in 
region X

Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Julien Danjou
On Mon, Sep 29 2014, Jay Pipes wrote:

 What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for backend 
 storage?

Yay! I already wrote a PoC to that:

  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86016/

It has been rejected because this patch didn't use the generic approach
that Keystone tries to use to all the storage backends. Otherwise, I've
tested it a bit with devstack and it worked fine.

I didn't continue to work on it by lack of time, and because the effort
to use Swift as a generic cache mechanism seemed a bit tricky to me.

-- 
Julien Danjou
// Free Software hacker
// http://julien.danjou.info


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Jay Pipes

On 09/29/2014 12:15 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:

On Mon, Sep 29 2014, Jay Pipes wrote:


What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for backend storage?


Yay! I already wrote a PoC to that:

   https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86016/


Sweet! :)


It has been rejected because this patch didn't use the generic approach
that Keystone tries to use to all the storage backends. Otherwise, I've
tested it a bit with devstack and it worked fine.

I didn't continue to work on it by lack of time, and because the effort
to use Swift as a generic cache mechanism seemed a bit tricky to me.


Any objection to me taking up the work? Was there any associated 
blueprint for it?


Best,
-jay



___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Lance Bragstad
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 09/29/2014 12:15 PM, Julien Danjou wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 29 2014, Jay Pipes wrote:

  What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for backend
 storage?


 Yay! I already wrote a PoC to that:

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86016/


 Sweet! :)

  It has been rejected because this patch didn't use the generic approach
 that Keystone tries to use to all the storage backends. Otherwise, I've
 tested it a bit with devstack and it worked fine.

 I didn't continue to work on it by lack of time, and because the effort
 to use Swift as a generic cache mechanism seemed a bit tricky to me.


 Any objection to me taking up the work? Was there any associated blueprint
 for it?


To the best of my knowledge, I haven't seen a spec or blueprint proposed
for a swift token backend.



 Best,
 -jay



 ___
 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


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Julien Danjou
On Mon, Sep 29 2014, Jay Pipes wrote:

 Any objection to me taking up the work? Was there any associated blueprint for
 it?

As said on IRC, go ahead. There's no blueprint associated AFAIK. :)

-- 
Julien Danjou
/* Free Software hacker
   http://julien.danjou.info */


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Morgan Fainberg
On Monday, September 29, 2014, Julien Danjou jul...@danjou.info wrote:

 On Mon, Sep 29 2014, Jay Pipes wrote:

  Any objection to me taking up the work? Was there any associated
 blueprint for
  it?

 As said on IRC, go ahead. There's no blueprint associated AFAIK. :)

 --
 Julien Danjou
 /* Free Software hacker
http://julien.danjou.info */


There is of course a benefit to having more options for deployers to
utilize for the token persistence, especially if we solve complaints about
the current token systems in the process.

A couple thoughts:

I highly recommend making this a dogpile backend (KVS) in keystone. It
should help eliminate a bunch of the harder bits of code since it will use
the KVS house keeping code for the indexes (same way it works in memcache
or the in-memory dict backend).

The big issue you're going to run into is locking. The indexes need to have
a distributed lock that guarantees that each index is read/updated/released
atomically (similar to the SQL transaction). The way memcache and redis
handle this is by trying to add a record that is based on the index record
name and if that add fails (already exists) we assume the referenced
record is locked. We automatically timeout the lock after a period of time.

I am also curious what the performance profile of swift-as-a-token-backend
will look like. You are adding a large amount of overhead to the request
(in theory) as the swift call is another http request. And depending on how
swift is running, may require more token request work (tokens, especially
v2.0 since he token is is in the body must be considered secure data, and
therefore should not be directly accessible to the world at large), keeping
security concerns in mind.

There are some other cool ideas this can lead to, but let's talk about the
reality and limitations (and how we solve those issues) for our current use
cases before we dive into the next steps.

The first thing we will need is (of course) a spec for keystone. Let's try
and get the spec proposed soon so we can ensure that we get anything that
needs to land in kilo through the door earlier in the cycle.

Cheers,
Morgan

Sent via mobile
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Dmitry Mescheryakov
Hey Jay,

Did you consider Swift's eventual consistency? The general use case for
many OpenStack application is:
 1. obtain the token from Keystone
 2. perform some operation in OpenStack providing token as credentials.

As a result of operation #1 the token will be saved into Swift by the
Keystone. But due to eventual consistency it could happen that validation
of token in operation #2 will not see the saved token. Probability depends
on time gap between ops #1 and #2: the smaller the gap, the higher is
probability (less time to sync). Also it depends on Swift installation
size: the bigger is installation, the higher is probability (bigger 'space'
for inconsistency).

I believe that I've seen such inconsistency in Rackspace Cloud Files a
couple of years ago. We uploaded a file using an application into the
Files, but saw it in browser only a couple minutes later.

It is my understanding that Ceph exposing Swift API is not affected though,
as it is strongly consistent.

Thanks,

Dmitry


2014-09-29 20:12 GMT+04:00 Jay Pipes jaypi...@gmail.com:

 Hey Stackers,

 So, I had a thought this morning (uh-oh, I know...).

 What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for backend
 storage?

 I have long been an advocate of the memcache token driver versus the SQL
 driver for performance reasons. However, the problem with the memcache
 token driver is that if you want to run multiple OpenStack regions, you
 could share the identity data in Keystone using replicated database
 technology (mysql galera/PXC, pgpool II, or even standard mysql
 master/slave), but each region needs to have its own memcache service for
 tokens. This means that tokens are not shared across regions, which means
 that users have to log in separately to each region's dashboard.

 I personally considered this a tradeoff worth accepting. But then, today,
 I thought... what about storing tokens in a globally-distributed Swift
 cluster? That would take care of the replication needs automatically, since
 Swift would do the needful. And, add to that, Swift was designed for
 storing lots of small objects, which tokens are...

 Thoughts? I think it would be a cool dogfooding effort if nothing else,
 and give users yet another choice in how they handle multi-region tokens.

 Best,
 -jay

 ___
 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


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 11:47 PM, Dmitry Mescheryakov 
dmescherya...@mirantis.com wrote:

 As a result of operation #1 the token will be saved into Swift by the
 Keystone. But due to eventual consistency it could happen that validation
 of token in operation #2 will not see the saved token. Probability depends
 on time gap between ops #1 and #2: the smaller the gap, the higher is
 probability (less time to sync). Also it depends on Swift installation
 size: the bigger is installation, the higher is probability (bigger 'space'
 for inconsistency).



eventual consistency will only affect container listing  and I don't think
there is a need for container listing in that driver.

Chmouel
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Clay Gerrard
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Chmouel Boudjnah chmo...@enovance.com
wrote:



 eventual consistency will only affect container listing  and I don't think
 there is a need for container listing in that driver.


well now hold on...

if you're doing an overwrite in the face of server failures you could still
get a stale read if a server with an old copy comes back into the fray and
you read before replication sorts it out, or read a old version of a key
you deleted

-Clay
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Chmouel Boudjnah


On 30/09/2014 01:05, Clay Gerrard wrote:

eventual consistency will only affect container listing  and I don't think
there is a need for container listing in that driver.


well now hold on...

if you're doing an overwrite in the face of server failures you could still
get a stale read if a server with an old copy comes back into the fray and
you read before replication sorts it out, or read a old version of a key
you deleted
yeah sure thanks for clarifying but from my understanding all tokens are 
new keys/object there is not overwriting going on,


Chmouel


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Clay Gerrard's message of 2014-09-29 16:05:14 -0700:
 On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Chmouel Boudjnah chmo...@enovance.com
 wrote:
 
 
 
  eventual consistency will only affect container listing  and I don't think
  there is a need for container listing in that driver.
 
 
 well now hold on...
 
 if you're doing an overwrite in the face of server failures you could still
 get a stale read if a server with an old copy comes back into the fray and
 you read before replication sorts it out, or read a old version of a key
 you deleted

For tokens, there are really only two answers that matter:

* does ID==X exist?  * has ID==X been revoked?

I think as long as you have a separate container for revocations and
tokens, then resurrections would be fine. The records themselves would
be immutable so edits aren't a problem.

It would, however, be bad to get a 404 for something that is otherwise
present.. as that will result in an erroneous failure for the client.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Clay Gerrard
On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com wrote:


 It would, however, be bad to get a 404 for something that is otherwise
 present.. as that will result in an erroneous failure for the client.


That almost never happens, but is possible if all the primaries are down*,
a system than leans harder on the C a similar failure would be expected to
treat a similar impossible question as a failure/error.

* It's actually if all the same nodes that answered the previous write are
down; there's some trixies with error-limiting and stable handoffs that
help with subsequent read-your-writes behavior that actually make it fairly
difficult to write data that you can't then read back out unless you
basically track where all of the writes go and then shut down *exactly*
those nodes and make a read before replication beats you to it.  Just
shutting down all three primary locations will just write and then read
from the same handoff locations, even if the primaries subsequently come
back online (unless the primaries have an old copy - but it sounds like
that's not going on in your application).

Again, all of this has to do with under failure edge cases.  A healthy
swift system; or even one that's only moderately degraded won't really see
much of this.

Depending on the deployment latencies may be a concern if you're using this
as a cache - have you looked at Swauth [1] already?

-Clay

1. https://github.com/gholt/swauth
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Morgan Fainberg
-Original Message-
From: Clint Byrum cl...@fewbar.com
Reply: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) 
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Date: September 29, 2014 at 16:17:39
To: openstack-dev openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing 
tokens in Swift?

 Excerpts from Clay Gerrard's message of 2014-09-29 16:05:14 -0700:
  On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Chmouel Boudjnah  
  wrote:
 
  
  
   eventual consistency will only affect container listing and I don't think
   there is a need for container listing in that driver.
  
  
  well now hold on...
 
  if you're doing an overwrite in the face of server failures you could still
  get a stale read if a server with an old copy comes back into the fray and
  you read before replication sorts it out, or read a old version of a key
  you deleted
  
 For tokens, there are really only two answers that matter:
  
 * does ID==X exist? * has ID==X been revoked?

 I think as long as you have a separate container for revocations and
 tokens, then resurrections would be fine. The records themselves would
 be immutable so edits aren't a problem.

This isn’t exactly true. In the case of certain actions 
(user/project/domain/role delete, user password change, and a number of other 
ones) you need to be able to find all tokens associated to that entity so they 
can be revoked (if you’re not using revocation events). This likely means for 
this type of backend revocation events are a requirement (eliminates the need 
to list out each token id/provide a way to lookup a token based upon the entity 
being acted upon) and the ‘enumerated’ token indexes should not be supported. 

—Morgan

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Adam Young

On 09/29/2014 12:12 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:

Hey Stackers,

So, I had a thought this morning (uh-oh, I know...).

What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for 
backend storage?


I have long been an advocate of the memcache token driver versus the 
SQL driver for performance reasons. However, the problem with the 
memcache token driver is that if you want to run multiple OpenStack 
regions, you could share the identity data in Keystone using 
replicated database technology (mysql galera/PXC, pgpool II, or even 
standard mysql master/slave), but each region needs to have its own 
memcache service for tokens. This means that tokens are not shared 
across regions, which means that users have to log in separately to 
each region's dashboard.


I personally considered this a tradeoff worth accepting. But then, 
today, I thought... what about storing tokens in a 
globally-distributed Swift cluster? That would take care of the 
replication needs automatically, since Swift would do the needful. 
And, add to that, Swift was designed for storing lots of small 
objects, which tokens are...


Thoughts? I think it would be a cool dogfooding effort if nothing 
else, and give users yet another choice in how they handle 
multi-region tokens.


Um...I hate all persisted tokens.  This takes them to a new level of 
badness.


Do we really need this?





Best,
-jay

___
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


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Clint Byrum
Excerpts from Adam Young's message of 2014-09-29 20:22:35 -0700:
 On 09/29/2014 12:12 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
  Hey Stackers,
 
  So, I had a thought this morning (uh-oh, I know...).
 
  What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for 
  backend storage?
 
  I have long been an advocate of the memcache token driver versus the 
  SQL driver for performance reasons. However, the problem with the 
  memcache token driver is that if you want to run multiple OpenStack 
  regions, you could share the identity data in Keystone using 
  replicated database technology (mysql galera/PXC, pgpool II, or even 
  standard mysql master/slave), but each region needs to have its own 
  memcache service for tokens. This means that tokens are not shared 
  across regions, which means that users have to log in separately to 
  each region's dashboard.
 
  I personally considered this a tradeoff worth accepting. But then, 
  today, I thought... what about storing tokens in a 
  globally-distributed Swift cluster? That would take care of the 
  replication needs automatically, since Swift would do the needful. 
  And, add to that, Swift was designed for storing lots of small 
  objects, which tokens are...
 
  Thoughts? I think it would be a cool dogfooding effort if nothing 
  else, and give users yet another choice in how they handle 
  multi-region tokens.
 
 Um...I hate all persisted tokens.  This takes them to a new level of 
 badness.
 
 Do we really need this?
 

FWIW I'm 100% with you Adam. I would like to see a world without a token
storage problem in Keystone.

___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev


Re: [openstack-dev] [keystone][swift] Has anybody considered storing tokens in Swift?

2014-09-29 Thread Joshua Harlow
+1 Lets not continue to expand the usage of persisted tokens :-/

We should be trying to move away from such types of persistence and its 
associated complexity IMHO. Most major websites don't need to have tokens that 
are saved around regions in there internal backend databases, just so people 
can use a REST webservice (or a website...) so I would hope that we don't need 
to (if it works for major websites why doesn't it work for us?).

My 2 cents is that we should really think about why this is needed and why we 
can't operate using signed-cookie like mechanisms (after all it works for 
everyone else). If cross-region tokens are a problem, then maybe we should 
solve the root of the issue (having a token that works across regions) so that 
no replication is needed at all...

On Sep 29, 2014, at 8:22 PM, Adam Young ayo...@redhat.com wrote:

 On 09/29/2014 12:12 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
 Hey Stackers,
 
 So, I had a thought this morning (uh-oh, I know...).
 
 What if we wrote a token driver in Keystone that uses Swift for backend 
 storage?
 
 I have long been an advocate of the memcache token driver versus the SQL 
 driver for performance reasons. However, the problem with the memcache token 
 driver is that if you want to run multiple OpenStack regions, you could 
 share the identity data in Keystone using replicated database technology 
 (mysql galera/PXC, pgpool II, or even standard mysql master/slave), but each 
 region needs to have its own memcache service for tokens. This means that 
 tokens are not shared across regions, which means that users have to log in 
 separately to each region's dashboard.
 
 I personally considered this a tradeoff worth accepting. But then, today, I 
 thought... what about storing tokens in a globally-distributed Swift 
 cluster? That would take care of the replication needs automatically, since 
 Swift would do the needful. And, add to that, Swift was designed for storing 
 lots of small objects, which tokens are...
 
 Thoughts? I think it would be a cool dogfooding effort if nothing else, and 
 give users yet another choice in how they handle multi-region tokens.
 
 Um...I hate all persisted tokens.  This takes them to a new level of badness.
 
 Do we really need this?
 
 
 
 
 Best,
 -jay
 
 ___
 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


___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev