Excerpts from Curtis's message of 2017-06-19 18:56:25 -0600: > On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Amrith Kumar <amrith.ku...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration in > > IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases. Today > > it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication. > > > > The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the > > project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by > > the development team). > > > > Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments, > > acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with a > > mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal to > > re-architect Trove. > > > > This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both > > structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a > > detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the > > recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so > > that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it > > in the future. > > > > TL;DR > > > > Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a > > bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant > > amount of technical debt. > > > > Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have > > consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers. > > > > Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present, > > this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and > > come up with a strong v2. > > > > An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to > > eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing > > Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work > > beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will > > be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it > > becomes available. > > > > While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1 > > through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community > > participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no > > production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build > > that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial > > bridge from nowhere. > > > > This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who > > have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who > > have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this, all > > I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please commit > > the development resources to participate in the community to make that > > possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will only > > make the v1 that we have today less valuable. > > > > We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in > > v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are: > > > > - We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning; making > > the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’ > > > > - A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a shared > > management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic, > > per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security > > hole > > > > - Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova VM > > specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things like > > containers or bare-metal second class citizens > > > > - A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t > > reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far > > along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an > > opportunity to fix that now > > > > - A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a > > state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing > > database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful > > entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a > > serious architectural flaw > > > > - Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying > > storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default > > configuration, not an untested deployment alternative > > > > As an operator I wouldn't run Trove as it is, unless I absolutely had to. > > I think it is a good idea to reboot the project. I really think the > concept of "service VMs" should be a thing. I'm not sure where the > OpenStack community has landed on that, my fault for not paying close > attention, but we should be able to create VMs for a tenant that are > not managed by the tenant but that could be billed to them in some > fashion. At least that's my opinion.
Does "service VM" need to be a first-class thing? Akanda creates them, using a service user. The VMs are tied to a "router" which is the billable resource that the user understands and interacts with through the API. Doug __________________________________________________________________________ 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