On 13/09/15 18:34, Steven Dake (stdake) wrote:
Response inline.
From: Sam Yaple <sam...@yaple.net<mailto:sam...@yaple.net>>
Reply-To: "s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>"
<s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>>
Date: Sunday, September 13, 2015 at 1:35 AM
To: Steven Dake <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [kolla] Followup to review in gerrit relating to RHOS + RDO types
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
<std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Response inline.
From: Sam Yaple <sam...@yaple.net<mailto:sam...@yaple.net>>
Reply-To: "s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>"
<s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:34 PM
To: Steven Dake <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [kolla] Followup to review in gerrit relating to RHOS + RDO types
Sam Yaple
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
<std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote:
From: Sam Yaple <sam...@yaple.net<mailto:sam...@yaple.net>>
Reply-To: "s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>"
<s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>>
Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:01 PM
To: Steven Dake <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>>
Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [kolla] Followup to review in gerrit relating to RHOS + RDO types
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
<std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote:
Hey folks,
Sam had asked a reasonable set of questions regarding a patchset:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/222893/
The purpose of the patchset is to enable both RDO and RHOS as binary choices on
RHEL platforms. I suspect over time, from-source deployments have the
potential to become the norm, but the business logistics of such a change are
going to take some significant time to sort out.
Red Hat has two distros of OpenStack neither of which are from source. One is
free called RDO and the other is paid called RHOS. In order to obtain support
for RHEL VMs running in an OpenStack cloud, you must be running on RHOS RPM
binaries. You must also be running on RHEL. It remains to be seen whether Red
Hat will actively support Kolla deployments with a RHEL+RHOS set of packaging
in containers, but my hunch says they will. It is in Kolla’s best interest to
implement this model and not make it hard on Operators since many of them do
indeed want Red Hat’s support structure for their OpenStack deployments.
Now to Sam’s questions:
"Where does 'binary' fit in if we have 'rdo' and 'rhos'? How many more do we
add? What's our policy on adding a new type?”
I’m not immediately clear on how binary fits in. We could make binary
synonymous with the community supported version (RDO) while still implementing
the binary RHOS version. Note Kolla does not “support” any distribution or
deployment of OpenStack – Operators will have to look to their vendors for
support.
If everything between centos+rdo and rhel+rhos is mostly the same then I would
think it would make more sense to just use the base ('rhel' in this case) to
branch of any differences in the templates. This would also allow for the least
amount of change and most generic implementation of this vendor specific
packaging. This would also match what we do with oraclelinux, we do not have a
special type for that and any specifics would be handled by an if statement
around 'oraclelinux' and not some special type.
I think what you are proposing is RHEL + RHOS and CENTOS + RDO. RDO also runs
on RHEL. I want to enable Red Hat customers to make a choice to have a
supported operating system but not a supported Cloud environment. The answer
here is RHEL + RDO. This leads to full support down the road if the Operator
chooses to pay Red Hat for it by an easy transition to RHOS.
I am against including vendor specific things like RHOS in Kolla outright like
you are purposing. Suppose another vendor comes along with a new base and new
packages. They are willing to maintain it, but its something that no one but
their customers with their licensing can use. This is not something that
belongs in Kolla and I am unsure that it is even appropriate to belong in
OpenStack as a whole. Unless RHEL+RHOS can be used by those that do not have a
license for it, I do not agree with adding it at all.
Sam,
Someone stepping up to maintain a completely independent set of docker images
hasn’t happened. To date nobody has done that. If someone were to make that
offer, and it was a significant change, I think the community as a whole would
have to evaluate such a drastic change. That would certainly increase our
implementation and maintenance burden, which we don’t want to do. I don’t
think what you propose would be in the best interest of the Kolla project, but
I’d have to see the patch set to evaluated the scenario appropriately.
What we are talking about is 5 additional lines to enable RHEL+RHOS specific
repositories, which is not very onerous.
The fact that you can’t use it directly has little bearing on whether its valid
technology for OpenStack. There are already two well-defined historical
precedents for non-licensed unusable integration in OpenStack. Cinder has 55
[1] Volume drivers which they SUPPORT. At-leat 80% of them are completely
proprietary hardware which in reality is mostly just software which without a
license to, it would be impossible to use. There are 41 [2] Neutron drivers
registered on the Neutron driver page; almost the entirety require proprietary
licenses to what amounts as integration to access proprietary software. The
OpenStack preferred license is ASL for a reason – to be business friendly.
Licensed software has a place in the world of OpenStack, even it only serves as
an integration point which the proposed patch does. We are consistent with
community values on this point or I wouldn’t have bothered proposing the patch.
We want to encourage people to use Kolla for proprietary solutions if they so
choose. This is how support manifests, which increases the strength of the
Kolla project. The presence of support increases the likelihood that Kolla
will be adopted by Operators. If your asking the Operators to maintain a fork
for those 5 RHOS repo lines, that seems unreasonable.
I’d like to hear other Core Reviewer opinions on this matter and will hold a
majority vote on this thread as to whether we will facilitate integration with
third party software such as the Cinder Block Drivers, the Neutron Network
drivers, and various for-pay versions of OpenStack such as RHOS. I’d like all
core reviewers to weigh in please. Without a complete vote it will be hard to
gauge what the Kolla community really wants.
Core reviewers:
Please vote +1 if you ARE satisfied with integration with third party unusable
without a license software, specifically Cinder volume drivers, Neutron network
drivers, and various for-pay distributions of OpenStack and container runtimes.
Please vote –1 if you ARE NOT satisfied with integration with third party
unusable without a license software, specifically Cinder volume drivers,
Neutron network drivers, and various for pay distributions of OpenStack and
container runtimes.
A bit of explanation on your vote might be helpful.
My vote is +1. I have already provided my rationale.
Regards,
-steve
[1] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/CinderSupportMatrix
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Neutron_Plugins_and_Drivers
I appreciate you calling a vote so early. But I haven't had my questions
answered yet enough to even vote on the matter at hand.
In this situation the closest thing we have to a plugin type system as Cinder
or Neutron does is our header/footer system. What you are proposing is
integrating a proprietary solution into the core of Kolla. Those Cinder and
Neutron plugins have external components and those external components are not
baked into the project.
What happens if and when the RHOS packages require different tweaks in the
various containers? What if it requires changes to the Ansible playbooks? It
begins to balloon out past 5 lines of code.
Unfortunately, the community _wont_ get to vote on whether or not to implement
those changes because RHOS is already in place. That's why I am asking the
questions now as this _right_ _now_ is the significant change you are talking
about, regardless of the lines of code.
So the question is not whether we are going to integrate 3rd party plugins, but
whether we are going to allow companies to build proprietary products in the
Kolla repo. If we allow RHEL+RHOS then we would need to allow another
distro+company packaging and potential Ansible tweaks to get it to work for
them.
If you really want to do what Cinder and Neutron do, we need a better system
for injecting code. That would be much closer to the plugins that the other
projects have.
I'd like to have a discussion about this rather than immediately call for a
vote which is why I asked you to raise this question in a public forum in the
first place.
Sam,
While a true code injection system might be interesting and would be more
parallel with the plugin model used in cinder and neutron (and to some degrees
nova), those various systems didn’t begin that way. Their driver code at one
point was completely integrated. Only after 2-3 years was the code broken into
a fully injectable state. I think that is an awfully high bar to set to sort
out the design ahead of time. One of the reasons Neutron has taken so long to
mature is the Neutron community attempted to do plugins at too early a stage
which created big gaps in unit and functional tests. A more appropriate design
would be for that pattern to emerge from the system over time as people begin
to adopt various distro tech to Kolla. If you looked at the patch in gerrit,
there is one clear pattern “Setup distro repos” which at some point in the
future could be made to be injectable much as headers and footers are today.
As for building proprietary products in the Kolla repository, the license is
ASL, which means it is inherently not proprietary. I am fine with the code
base integrating with proprietary software as long as the license terms are
met; someone has to pay the mortgages of the thousands of OpenStack developers.
We should encourage growth of OpenStack, and one of the ways for that to
happen is to be business friendly. This translates into first knowing the
world is increasingly adopting open source methodologies and facilitating that
transition, and second accepting the world has a whole slew of proprietary
software that already exists today that requires integration.
Nonetheless, we have a difference of opinion on this matter, and I want this
work to merge prior to rc1. Since this is a project policy decision and not a
technical issue, it makes sense to put it to a wider vote to either unblock or
kill the work. It would be a shame if we reject all driver and supported
distro integration because we as a community take an anti-business stance on
our policies, but I’ll live by what the community decides. This is not a
decision either you or I may dictate which is why it has been put to a vote.
Regards
-steve
For oracle linux, I’d like to keep RDO for oracle linux and from source on
oracle linux as choices. RDO also runs on oracle linux. Perhaps the patch set
needs some later work here to address this point in more detail, but as is
“binary” covers oracle linu.
Perhaps what we should do is get rid of the binary type entirely. Ubuntu
doesn’t really have a binary type, they have a cloudarchive type, so binary
doesn’t make a lot of sense. Since Ubuntu to my knowledge doesn’t have two
distributions of OpenStack the same logic wouldn’t apply to providing a full
support onramp for Ubuntu customers. Oracle doesn’t provide a binary type
either, their binary type is really RDO.
The binary packages for Ubuntu are _packaged_ by the cloudarchive team. But in
the case of when OpenStack collides with an LTS release (Icehouse and 14.04 was
the last one) you do not add a new repo because the packages are in the main
Ubuntu repo.
Debian provides its own packages as well. I do not want a type name per distro.
'binary' catches all packaged OpenStack things by a distro.
FWIW I never liked the transition away from rdo in the repo names to binary. I
guess I should have –1’ed those reviews back then, but I think its time to
either revisit the decision or compromise that binary and rdo mean the same
thing in a centos and rhel world.
Regards
-steve
Since we implement multiple bases, some of which are not RPM based, it doesn't
make much sense to me to have rhel and rdo as a type which is why we removed
rdo in the first place in favor of the more generic 'binary'.
As such the implied second question “How many more do we add?” sort of sounds
like ‘how many do we support?”. The answer to the second question is none –
again the Kolla community does not support any deployment of OpenStack. To the
question as posed, how many we add, the answer is it is really up to community
members willing to implement and maintain the work. In this case, I have
personally stepped up to implement RHOS and maintain it going forward.
Our policy on adding a new type could be simple or onerous. I prefer simple.
If someone is willing to write the code and maintain it so that is stays in
good working order, I see no harm in it remaining in tree. I don’t suspect
there will be a lot of people interested in adding multiple distributions for a
particular operating system. To my knowledge, and I could be incorrect, Red
Hat is the only OpenStack company with a paid and community version available
of OpenStack simultaneously and the paid version is only available on RHEL. I
think the risk of RPM based distributions plus their type count spiraling out
of manageability is low. Even if the risk were high, I’d prefer to keep an
open mind to facilitate an increase in diversity in our community (which is
already fantastically diverse, btw ;)
I am open to questions, comments or concerns. Please feel free to voice them.
Regards,
-steve
__________________________________________________________________________
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
Both arguments sound valid to me, both have pros and cons.
I think it's valuable to look to the experiences of Cinder and Neutron
in this area, both of which seem to have the same scenario and have
existed much longer than Kolla. From what I know of how these operate,
proprietary code is allowed to exist in the mainline so long as certain
set of criteria is met. I'd have to look it up but I think it mostly
comprises of the relevant parties must "play by the rules", e.g. provide
a working CI, help with reviews, attend weekly meetings, etc. If Kolla
can look to craft a similar set of criteria for proprietary code down
the line, I think it should work well for us.
Steve has a good point in that it may be too much overhead to implement
a plugin system or similar up front. Instead, we should actively monitor
the overhead in terms of reviews and code size that these extra
implementations add. Perhaps agree to review it at the end of Mitaka?
Given the project is young, I think it can also benefit from the
increased usage and exposure from allowing these parties in. I would
hope independent contributors would not feel rejected from not being
able to use/test with the pieces that need a license. The libre distros
will remain #1 for us.
So based on the above explanation, I'm +1.
-Paul
__________________________________________________________________________
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
