+1000 Sean. Thanks, Dims
On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Sean Dague <s...@dague.net> wrote: > On 03/14/2017 11:00 PM, Monty Taylor wrote: > <snip> >> a) awesome. when the rest of this dips momentarily into words that might >> sound negative, please hear it all wrapped in an "awesome" and know that >> my personal desire is to see the thing you're working on be successful >> without undue burden... >> >> b) In Tokyo, we had the big discussion about DLMs (where at least my >> intent going in to the room was to get us to pick one and only one). >> There were three camps in the room who were all vocal: >> >> 1) YES! Let's just pick one, I don't care which one >> 2) I hate Java I don't want to run Zookeeper, so we can't pick that >> 3) I hate go/don't trust coreos I don't want to run etcd so we can't >> pick that >> >> Because of 2 and 3 the group represented by 1 lost and we ended up with: >> "crap, we have to use an abstraction library" >> >> I'd argue that unless something has changed significantly, having Nova >> grow a direct depend on etcd when the DLM discussion brought us to "the >> operators in the room have expressed a need for a pluggable choice >> between at least zk and etcd" should be pretty much a non-starter. >> >> Now, being that I was personally in group 1, I'd be THRILLED if we >> could, as a community, decide to pick one and skip having an abstraction >> library. I still don't care which one - and you know I love gRPC/protobuf. >> >> But I do think that given the anti-etcd sentiment that was expressed was >> equally as vehement as the anti-zk sentiment, that we need to circle >> back and make a legit call on this topic. >> >> If we can pick one, I think having special-purpose libraries like >> os-lively for specific purposes would be neat. >> >> If we still can't pick one, then I think adding the liveness check you >> implemented for os-lively as a new feature in tooz and also implementing >> the same thing in the zk driver would be necessary. (of course, that'll >> probably depend on getting etcd3 support added to tooz and making sure >> there is a good functional test for etcd3. > > We should also make it clear that: > > 1) Tokyo was nearly 1.5 years ago. > 2) Many stake holders in openstack with people in that room may no > longer be part of our community > 3) Alignment with Kubernetes has become something important at many > levels inside of OpenStack (which puts some real weight on the etcd front) > 4) The containers ecosystem, which etcd came out of, has matured > dramatically > > I do think this is enough change to when that decision was made to > revisit. As was said elsewhere in this thread, you have to run etcd for > kubernetes, so picking that (in an opinionated way) for OpenStack seems > like a good both technical and social call. > > -Sean > > -- > Sean Dague > http://dague.net > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Davanum Srinivas :: https://twitter.com/dims __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev