On 20/04/15 13:39 -0700, Vipul Sabhaya wrote:
On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:07 PM, Fox, Kevin M <kevin....@pnnl.gov> wrote: Another parallel is Manilla vs Swift. Both provides something like a share for users to store files. The former is a multitenant api to provision non multitenant file shares. The latter is a multitenant api to provide file sharing. Cue is a multitenant api to provision non multitenant queues. Zaqar is an api for a multitenant queueing system. They are complimentary services. Agreed, it’s not an either/or, there is room for both. While Cue could provision Zaqar, it doesn’t make sense, since it is already multi-tenant. As has been said, Cue’s goal is to bring non-multi-tenant message brokers to the cloud. On the question of adoption, what confuses me is why the measurement of success of a project is whether other OpenStack services are integrating or not. Zaqar exposes an API that seems best fit for application workloads running on an OpenStack cloud. The question should be raised to operators as to what’s preventing them from running Zaqar in their public cloud, distro, or whatever. Looking at other services that we consider to be successful, such as Trove, we did not attempt to integrate with other OpenStack projects. Rather, we solved the concerns that operators had.
FWIW, the team is not messuring the success of the project on whether it's integrated with other services or not. The adoption in all possible areas play key parts in every project's life. While it's amazing that RDO - and I believe Ubuntu is packaging too, Zigo, correct me, pls - has support for it, I don't think that's enough for the project to go anywhere. The use cases of this project, from a *provider* point of view are very specific - you either want to sell/use queues or you don't - and similar to SQS's. The fact that many folks miss is that SQS itself is being used *internally* in AWS for other things that I'm not going to get into. This is true not just for SQS, SNS but also for several other services they provide. Thankfully enough, we've folloed the same lead of using the things we've created. For instance, Trove uses nova for vms, Nova uses Cinder for block devices, etc, etc, etc. This needs to happen for Zaqar too. This will help the project mature with feedback from the "real world". This will give deployers enough confidence that the project is needed and it'll also drive some attention towards the project. Comparing Trove and Zaqar as services won't, ever, give a good result. They have different uses-cases, users base and types of APIs - data vs control. Not to mention they both went through different processes in very different periods of our community (Integrated/big tent, etc). Flavio
Thanks, Kevin ________________________________________ From: Ryan Brown [rybr...@redhat.com] Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 11:38 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Call for adoption (or exclusion?) On 04/20/2015 02:22 PM, Michael Krotscheck wrote: > What's the difference between openstack/zaqar and stackforge/cue? > Looking at the projects, it seems like zaqar is a ground-up > implementation of a queueing system, while cue is a provisioning api for > queuing systems that could include zaqar, but could also include rabbit, > zmq, etc... > > If my understanding of the projects is correct, the latter is far more > versatile, and more in line with similar openstack approaches like > trove. Is there a use case nuance I'm not aware of that warrants > duplicating efforts? Because if not, one of the two should be retired > and development focused on the other. > > Note: I do not have a horse in this race. I just feel it's strange that > we're building a thing that can be provisioned by the other thing. > Well, with Trove you can provision databases, but the MagnetoDB project still provides functionality that trove won't. The Trove : MagnetoDB and Cue : Zaqar comparison fits well. Trove provisions one instance of X (some database) per tenant, where MagnetoDB is one "instance" (collection of hosts to do database things) that serves many tenants. Cue's goal is "I have a not-very-multitenant message bus (rabbit, or whatever)" and makes that multitenant by provisioning one per tenant, while Zaqar has a single install (of as many machines as needed) to support messaging for all cloud tenants. This enables great stuff like cross-tenant messaging, better physical resource utilization in sparse-tenant cases, etc. As someone who wants to adopt Zaqar, I'd really like to see it continue as a project because it provides things other message broker approaches don't. -- Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. __________________________________________________________________________ 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 __________________________________________________________________________ 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
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgprPFiBcs66F.pgp
Description: PGP signature
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
