Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of 2016-05-20 12:42:09 +0200: > On 05/11/2016 04:17 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > > The big difference with Go here is that the dependency work happens at > > build time, not deploy/runtime in most cases. That shifts much of the > > burden to people

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

left to systems like Docker. Thanks, Kevin From: Dean Troyer [dtro...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2016 5:48 AM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 AM

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/20/2016 08:48 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Thomas Goirand > wrote: I am *NOT* buying that doing static linking is a progress. We're back 30 years in the past, before the .so format. It is amazing that some

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 5:42 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > I am *NOT* buying that doing static linking is a progress. We're back 30 > years in the past, before the .so format. It is amazing that some of us > think it's better. It simply isn't. It's a huge regression, for package >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/11/2016 04:17 PM, Dean Troyer wrote: > The big difference with Go here is that the dependency work happens at > build time, not deploy/runtime in most cases. That shifts much of the > burden to people (theoretically) better suited to manage that work. I am *NOT* buying that doing static

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/18/2016 06:42 PM, Eric Larson wrote: > > Dmitry Tantsur writes: > >> This is pretty subjective, I would say. I personally don't feel Go >> (especially its approach to error handling) any natural (at least no >> more than Rust or Scala, for example). If familiarity for Python >> developers is

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/19/2016 12:58 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 19 May 2016 at 22:40, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: You are correct that my position is subjective, but it is based on my experiences trying to operate and deploy OpenStack in addition to writing code. The draw of Go, in my

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 19 May 2016 at 22:40, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > >> You are correct that my position is subjective, but it is based on my >> experiences trying to operate and deploy OpenStack in addition to >> writing code. The draw of Go, in my experience, has been easily >> deploying a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/19/2016 12:42 AM, Eric Larson wrote: Dmitry Tantsur writes: This is pretty subjective, I would say. I personally don't feel Go (especially its approach to error handling) any natural (at least no more than Rust or Scala, for example). If familiarity for Python developers is an argument

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Dmitry Tantsur writes: This is pretty subjective, I would say. I personally don't feel Go (especially its approach to error handling) any natural (at least no more than Rust or Scala, for example). If familiarity for Python developers is an argument here, mastering Cython or making

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: May 16, 2016 at 09:55:27 To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/16/2016 05:23 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: On 05/14/2

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

; <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Date: May 16, 2016 at 09:55:27 >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go >> >>> On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Adam Young wrote: >>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

penstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/16/2016 05:23 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: If we allow Go, t

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

g> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go > On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Adam Young wrote: > > On 05/16/2016 05:23 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > >> On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote: > >>> On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: > >>>>

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/16/2016 04:35 PM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/16/2016 05:23 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based languages. Nope. Don't get me wrong, I've written

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/16/2016 05:23 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based languages. Nope. Don't get me wrong, I've written more than my fair share of Java in my

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/14/2016 03:00 AM, Adam Young wrote: On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based languages. Nope. Don't get me wrong, I've written more than my fair share of Java in my career, and I like it, and I miss automated

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 7:13 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Dieterly, Deklan's message of 2016-05-14 01:18:20 +: > > Python 2.x will not be supported for much longer, and let¹s face it, > > Python is easy, but it just does not scale. Nor does Python have the > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Excerpts from Dieterly, Deklan's message of 2016-05-14 01:18:20 +: > Python 2.x will not be supported for much longer, and let¹s face it, > Python is easy, but it just does not scale. Nor does Python have the > performance characteristics that large, distributed systems require. Maybe > Java

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Why is that? Thank you, Mark On 5/13/2016 7:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based languages. -- Deklan Dieterly Senior Systems Software Engineer HPE On 5/13/16, 2:10 PM, "Adam Young" wrote: >Can we just up and

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Python 2.x will not be supported for much longer, and let¹s face it, Python is easy, but it just does not scale. Nor does Python have the performance characteristics that large, distributed systems require. Maybe Java could replace Python in OpenStack as the workhorse language. -- Deklan Dieterly

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/13/2016 08:21 PM, Dieterly, Deklan wrote: If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based languages. Nope. Don't get me wrong, I've written more than my fair share of Java in my career, and I like it, and I miss automated refactoring and real threads. I have nothing

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

If we allow Go, then we should also consider allowing JVM based languages. -- Deklan Dieterly Senior Systems Software Engineer HPE On 5/13/16, 2:10 PM, "Adam Young" wrote: >Can we just up and support Go, please? I'm a C++ and C buff, but I >would not inflict either of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Can we just up and support Go, please? I'm a C++ and C buff, but I would not inflict either of those on other people, nor would I want to support their code. Go is designed to be native but readable/writable. There is nothing perfect in this world. Python for most things. Javascript for web

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Excerpts from Dmitry Tantsur's message of 2016-05-13 01:14:02 -0700: > On 05/11/2016 09:50 PM, Eric Larson wrote: > > To contrast that, the go POC was able to use a well tested go DNS > > library and implement the same documented interface that was then > > testable via the same functional tests.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:14:02 +0200 Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > [...] If familiarity for Python > developers is an argument here, mastering Cython or making OpenStack run > on PyPy must be much easier for a random Python developer out there to > seriously bump the performance.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

You're absolutely right. If we can get as good (or even close) to the same performance eg with PyPy, then we should absolutely do that! I've had many public and private conversations over the last year or so that have that same basic message as I've been looking at the ongoing Golang work in

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

+ Agree. It is strange to use another language to address performance issues if you haven't tried to solve those issues using original language's options. On 05/13/2016 11:53 AM, Fausto Marzi wrote: ++ Brilliant. On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Dmitry Tantsur

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

++ Brilliant. On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Dmitry Tantsur wrote: > > This is pretty subjective, I would say. I personally don't feel Go > (especially its approach to error handling) any natural (at least no more > than Rust or Scala, for example). If familiarity for

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/11/2016 09:50 PM, Eric Larson wrote: Flavio Percoco writes: On 11/05/16 09:47 -0500, Dean Troyer wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: [language mixing bits were here] The above is my main concern with this proposal. I'vementioned

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Tue 10 May at 10:19:23 -0400 raysonlo...@gmail.com said: > > IMO, the best use case of not using a package manager is when deploying into > containers -- would you prefer to just drop a static binary of your Go code, > or > you would rather install "apt-get" into a container image, and then

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

My take would be to select no more than 3 languages, according what they are needed for, then let the Service Team pick the best one right for what it needs to be done. Something like: - Do you need more performance for this component in your service? OK, use this. - Do you need Web and alike?

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 13 May 2016 at 00:01, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Robert Collins wrote: >> >> [...] >> So, given that that is the model - why is language part of it? Yes, >> there are minimum overheads to having a given language in CI [...] > > > By "minimum" do you mean that they are

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

James, Thanks for the detailed write up straight from the trenches :) -- Dims On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 5:58 AM, James Page wrote: > On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 19:32 Monty Taylor wrote: > [...] >> >> [> The point here though, is that the versions of

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Robert Collins wrote: [...] So, given that that is the model - why is language part of it? Yes, there are minimum overheads to having a given language in CI [...] By "minimum" do you mean that they are someone else's problem ? There are economics at play here. Adding a language simplifies the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Mon, 9 May 2016 at 19:32 Monty Taylor wrote: [...] > [> The point here though, is that the versions of Python that OpenStack > > has traditionally supported have been directly tied to what the Linux > > distributions carry in their repositories (case in point, Python 2.6

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Mon, 9 May 2016 14:17:40 -0500 Edward Leafe wrote: > Whenever I hear claims that Python is “too slow for X”, I wonder > what’s so special about X that makes it so much more demanding than, > say, serving up YouTube. In case of Swift, the biggest issue was the scheduler. As

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 01:11 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > As a community, we decided long ago to silo our code: Nova and Swift > could have been in one tree, with multiple different artifacts - think > of all the cross-code-base-friction we would not have had if we'd done > that! The cultural

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 01:11 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > So, given that that is the model - why is language part of it? Yes, > there are minimum overheads to having a given language in CI - we need > to be able to do robust reliable builds [or accept periodic downtime > when the internet is not

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

From: Robert Collins [robe...@robertcollins.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 1:11 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go I'm going to try arguing the pro case. The big tent has us bringing any *team* that want to work

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 11 May 2016, at 13:11, Robert Collins wrote: > > So, given that that is the model - why is language part of it? Yes, > there are minimum overheads to having a given language in CI - we need > to be able to do robust reliable builds [or accept periodic downtime > when the internet is not

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 2016-05-12 08:11:46 +1200 (+1200), Robert Collins wrote: [...] > Right now we support Python, Java, Javascript, Ruby in CI (as I > understand it - infra focused folk please jump in here :)). [...] We also support boatloads of shell script! ;) -- Jeremy Stanley

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

I'm going to try arguing the pro case. The big tent has us bringing any *team* that want to work the way we do: in the open, collaboratively, in concert with other teams, into OpenStacks community. Why are we using implementation language as a gate here? I assert that most deployers don't

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 12 May 2016 at 02:35, Brant Knudson wrote: > > I'd be worried about bringing in a language that doesn't integrate well with > Python, since I'd expect the normal route would be to take advantage of as > much of the existing code as we have and only replace those parts that need >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Jim Rollenhagen writes: On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 03:36:09PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 05/11/2016 02:41 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: >> Installing from $language manager instead of distro >> packages, be it in containers or not, will almost always >> make you download random blobs from

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Flavio Percoco writes: On 11/05/16 09:47 -0500, Dean Troyer wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: [language mixing bits were here] The above is my main concern with this proposal. I've mentioned this in the upstream review and I'm glad to

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 03:24 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > That said I know that the Swift team spent a lot of time in the past 6 > years optimizing their Python code, so I'm not sure we can generalize > this "everything to do with the algorithms" analysis to them ? > I agree. The swift

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/11/2016 03:23 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote: > On 5/11/16 7:09 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 05/10/2016 09:56 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote: >>> On 5/9/16 5:21 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 10 May 2016 at 10:54, John Dickinson wrote: > On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 5/11/16 7:09 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: On 05/10/2016 09:56 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote: On 5/9/16 5:21 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 10 May 2016 at 10:54, John Dickinson wrote: On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 05:09 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 10/05/2016 23:28, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > > > OK, I'll bite. > > > > I had a look at the code and there's a *ton* of low hanging fruit. I > > decided to hack in some fixes or emulation of fixes to see whether I > > could get any major

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 11/05/16 09:47 -0500, Dean Troyer wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: [language mixing bits were here] The above is my main concern with this proposal. I've mentioned this in the upstream review and I'm glad to have found it here as well.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 11/05/16 12:09 +, Hayes, Graham wrote: On 10/05/2016 23:28, Gregory Haynes wrote: On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: On 10/05/2016 01:01, Gregory Haynes wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 03:54 PM, John Dickinson wrote: On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote:

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 2016-05-11 10:09:31 -0400 (-0400), Jim Rollenhagen wrote: [...] > Well, if we're talking about python, it all comes from PyPI. [...] That's not entirely true. Some projects listed on PyPI are simply index links to packages hosted elsewhere on the Web and that used to be a _lot_ more common

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

wow. everything you did below is awesome. respect. not a swift dev so i won't suggest what to do as i'm sure you've put a lot more thought into adopting golang than i have. personally, i think it's easier to find design flaws in something that is (perceived) slow and these design optimisations

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 5:54 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: [language mixing bits were here] The above is my main concern with this proposal. I've mentioned this in the > upstream review and I'm glad to have found it here as well. The community > impact > of this change is perhaps

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/10/2016 07:08 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote: On 10/05/16 13:52 -0400, Adam Young wrote: Forget package management for a moment; we can figure it out if we need to. The question is "Why Go" which I've pondered for a while. If you need to write a multithreaded app, Python's GIL makes it very

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

I'd be worried about bringing in a language that doesn't integrate well with Python, since I'd expect the normal route would be to take advantage of as much of the existing code as we have and only replace those parts that need replacing. From these web pages it looks like Go integrates with

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 03:36:09PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/11/2016 02:41 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: > >> Installing from $language manager instead of distro packages, be it in > >> containers or not, will almost always make you download random blobs > >> from the Internet, which are

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 8:36 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Pinning versions doesn't change the fact that you'll have to trust a > large amount of providers, with some of the files stored in a single > location on the Internet. Yes, you can add a cache, etc. but these are >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/10/2016 09:56 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote: > On 5/9/16 5:21 PM, Robert Collins wrote: >> On 10 May 2016 at 10:54, John Dickinson wrote: >>> On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same thing -

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/11/2016 02:41 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote: >> Installing from $language manager instead of distro packages, be it in >> containers or not, will almost always make you download random blobs >> from the Internet, which are of course changing over time without any >> notice, loosing the above 3

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 09/05/16 19:43 -0400, Rayson Ho wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: Perhaps for mature languages. But go is still finding its way, and that usually involves rapid changes that are needed faster than the multi-year cycle Linux distributions

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10/05/16 13:52 -0400, Adam Young wrote: Forget package management for a moment; we can figure it out if we need to. The question is "Why Go" which I've pondered for a while. If you need to write a multithreaded app, Python's GIL makes it very hard to do. It is one reason why I pushed

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 09/05/16 14:35 -0400, Ben Swartzlander wrote: On 05/09/2016 02:15 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Pete Zaitcev's message of 2016-05-09 08:52:16 -0700: On Mon, 9 May 2016 09:06:02 -0400 Rayson Ho wrote: Since the Go toolchain is pretty self-contained, most

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 02:01:30AM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote: > On 05/10/2016 04:19 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: > > I mentioned in earlier replies but I may as well mention it again: a > > package manager gives you no advantage in a language toolchain like Go > > Oh... You mean just like in Python

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10/05/2016 23:28, Gregory Haynes wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: >> On 10/05/2016 01:01, Gregory Haynes wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 03:54 PM, John Dickinson wrote: On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > This is a bit of an

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Gregory Haynes wrote: [...] All said and done, I think that's almost a 3x speed increase with minimal effort. So, can we stop saying that this has anything to do with Python as a language and has everything to do with the algorithms being used? Thanks for this analysis, it's really helpful.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

. Thanks, Kevin From: Thomas Goirand [z...@debian.org] Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 5:01 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go On 05/10/2016 04:19 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: > I mentio

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/10/2016 04:19 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: > I mentioned in earlier replies but I may as well mention it again: a > package manager gives you no advantage in a language toolchain like Go Oh... You mean just like in Python where we have pip, Perl where we have CPAN, PHP where we have PEAR, or

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/10/2016 08:42 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > I hope that the packaging technologies are considered as part of the TC > evaluation of a new language. While many alternative approaches are > available, a language which could not be packaged into RPM or DEB would > be an additional burden for distro

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/10/2016 01:43 AM, Rayson Ho wrote: > Using a package manager won't buy us anything, and like Clint raised, > the Linux distros are way too slow in picking up new Go releases. Let's check for the facts and compare: https://golang.org/doc/devel/release.html with:

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Tue, May 10, 2016, at 11:10 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 10/05/2016 01:01, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 03:54 PM, John Dickinson wrote: > >> On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: > >>> > >>> This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 11 May 2016 at 06:10, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 10/05/2016 01:01, Gregory Haynes wrote: > The way this component works makes it quite difficult to make any major > improvement. > > MiniDNS (the component) takes data and sends a zone transfer every time > a recordset gets

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10/05/2016 20:48, Chris Friesen wrote: > On 05/10/2016 12:10 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > >> The way this component works makes it quite difficult to make any major >> improvement. >> >> MiniDNS (the component) takes data and sends a zone transfer every time >> a recordset gets updated. That is a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 5/9/16 5:21 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 10 May 2016 at 10:54, John Dickinson wrote: On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same thing - Is there some info (specs/etherpad/ML thread/etc) that has more

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/10/2016 12:10 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: The way this component works makes it quite difficult to make any major improvement. MiniDNS (the component) takes data and sends a zone transfer every time a recordset gets updated. That is a full (AXFR) zone transfer, so every record in the zone

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 15:54 May 09, John Dickinson wrote: > On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > > > This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same > > thing - Is there some info (specs/etherpad/ML thread/etc) that has more > > details on the bottleneck you're running in to?

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10/05/2016 01:01, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 03:54 PM, John Dickinson wrote: >> On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: >>> >>> This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same >>> thing - Is there some info (specs/etherpad/ML thread/etc) that

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Forget package management for a moment; we can figure it out if we need to. The question is "Why Go" which I've pondered for a while. If you need to write a multithreaded app, Python's GIL makes it very hard to do. It is one reason why I pushed for HTTPD as the Keystone front end.

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Excerpts from Rayson Ho's message of 2016-05-10 07:19:23 -0700: > On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Tim Bell wrote: > > I hope that the packaging technologies are considered as part of the TC > evaluation of a new language. While many alternative approaches are > available, a

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/05/16 02:25, Tom Fifield wrote: > Not a TC member, and this might not even be the right place for this, > but ... I think it would be nice if someone has a think about how moving > from a primarily single language community to a > multiple-languages-allowed-in-a-bigger-way community impacts

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10/05/16 08:57, Angus Lees wrote: > No, it doesn't. Several applications written in go are already packaged > for Debian (for example). > > Indeed the equivalent of "installing from master/pip" (ie: not using > distro packages) is _much_ easier in go, since there is no need for the >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

stack.org> > Date: Tuesday 10 May 2016 at 01:43 > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" < > openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go > > Go is a production language used by Goo

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

quot;OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go Go is a production language used by Google, Dropbox, many many web startups, and in fa

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Tue, 10 May 2016 at 05:19 Edward Leafe wrote: > On May 9, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > > > This is not a "Go seems cool - lets go try that" decision from us - we > > know we have a performance problem with one of our components, and we > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10 May 2016 at 06:58, Hayes, Graham wrote: > From a deck about "the rise and fall of Bind 10" [0] - > >"Python is awesome, but too damn slow for DNS" That slide deck doesn't provide any analysis on *what* that means - latency? requests per second?

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 8:21 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > > > If you think Perl is "nice" or "easy" you better get you head checked. > Each language has its strength and weakness, so just use the right tool for the job. In fact the system at the investment bank worked

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/09/2016 07:43 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Ben Swartzlander > wrote: >> >> Perhaps for mature languages. But go is still finding its way, and that >> usually involves rapid changes that are needed faster than

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 10 May 2016 at 10:54, John Dickinson wrote: > On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: >> >> This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same >> thing - Is there some info (specs/etherpad/ML thread/etc) that has more >> details on the bottleneck you're

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 03:54 PM, John Dickinson wrote: > On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > > > This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same > > thing - Is there some info (specs/etherpad/ML thread/etc) that has more > > details on the bottleneck you're

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/09/2016 09:51 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > There are all kinds of reasons to pick languages, but I think it would > be foolish of OpenStack to ignore the phenomenon of actual deployers > choosing Go to address OpenStack's shortcomings. Whether they're right, > I'm not sure, but I do know that

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 05/09/2016 01:33 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 08/05/2016 10:21, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> On 05/04/2016 01:29 AM, Hayes, Graham wrote: >>> On 03/05/2016 17:03, John Dickinson wrote: TC, In reference to http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-May/093680.html

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On 9 May 2016, at 13:16, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > This is a bit of an aside but I am sure others are wondering the same > thing - Is there some info (specs/etherpad/ML thread/etc) that has more > details on the bottleneck you're running in to? Given that the only > clients of your service are the

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Hayes, Graham wrote: > Sure - the Designate team could maintain 2 copies of our DNS server, > one in python as a reference, and one externally in Golang / C / C++ / > Rust / $language, which would in reality need to be used by anything > over a medium size deployment. > > That seems less than

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Edward Leafe's message of 2016-05-09 12:17:40 -0700: On May 9, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: This is not a "Go seems cool - lets go try that" decision from us - we know we have a performance problem with one of our components,

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 01:01 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > On 09/05/2016 20:46, Adam Young wrote: > > On 05/09/2016 02:14 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > >> On 09/05/2016 19:09, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > >>> I think you'll find that being able to embed a higher performance > >>> language inside python will

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

te/+spec/mdns-master > >> >>> ________________ >>> From: Hayes, Graham [graham.ha...@hpe.com] >>> Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 4:33 AM >>> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >>> Subject: Re: [openstack

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

On May 9, 2016, at 2:52 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: >> Whenever I hear claims that Python is “too slow for X”, I wonder what’s so >> special about X that makes it so much more demanding than, say, serving up >> YouTube. YouTube is written nearly entirely in Python, and has been

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Excerpts from Edward Leafe's message of 2016-05-09 12:17:40 -0700: > On May 9, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Hayes, Graham wrote: > > > This is not a "Go seems cool - lets go try that" decision from us - we > > know we have a performance problem with one of our components, and we > >

Re: [openstack-dev] [tc] supporting Go

Excerpts from Hayes, Graham's message of 2016-05-09 11:58:38 -0700: > On 09/05/2016 19:39, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > > On 05/09/2016 02:15 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > >> Excerpts from Pete Zaitcev's message of 2016-05-09 08:52:16 -0700: > >>> On Mon, 9 May 2016 09:06:02 -0400 > >>> Rayson Ho

  1   2   >