Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Scheduler proposal
On 10/08/2015 01:37 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: Excerpts from Maish Saidel-Keesing's message of 2015-10-08 00:14:55 -0700: Forgive the top-post. Cross-posting to openstack-operators for their feedback as well. Ed the work seems very promising, and I am interested to see how this evolves. With my operator hat on I have one piece of feedback. By adding in a new Database solution (Cassandra) we are now up to three different database solutions in use in OpenStack MySQL (practically everything) MongoDB (Ceilometer) Cassandra. Not to mention two different message queues Kafka (Monasca) RabbitMQ (everything else) Operational overhead has a cost - maintaining 3 different database tools, backing them up, providing HA, etc. has operational cost. This is not to say that this cannot be overseen, but it should be taken into consideration. And *if* they can be consolidated into an agreed solution across the whole of OpenStack - that would be highly beneficial (IMHO). Just because they both say they're databases, doesn't mean they're even remotely similar. True, but the fact remains that it means operators (and developers) would have to become familiar with the quirks and problems of yet another piece of technology. Chris __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Scheduler proposal
Excerpts from Chris Friesen's message of 2015-10-08 23:52:41 -0700: > On 10/08/2015 01:37 AM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Maish Saidel-Keesing's message of 2015-10-08 00:14:55 -0700: > >> Forgive the top-post. > >> > >> Cross-posting to openstack-operators for their feedback as well. > >> > >> Ed the work seems very promising, and I am interested to see how this > >> evolves. > >> > >> With my operator hat on I have one piece of feedback. > >> > >> By adding in a new Database solution (Cassandra) we are now up to three > >> different database solutions in use in OpenStack > >> > >> MySQL (practically everything) > >> MongoDB (Ceilometer) > >> Cassandra. > >> > >> Not to mention two different message queues > >> Kafka (Monasca) > >> RabbitMQ (everything else) > >> > >> Operational overhead has a cost - maintaining 3 different database > >> tools, backing them up, providing HA, etc. has operational cost. > >> > >> This is not to say that this cannot be overseen, but it should be taken > >> into consideration. > >> > >> And *if* they can be consolidated into an agreed solution across the > >> whole of OpenStack - that would be highly beneficial (IMHO). > >> > > > > Just because they both say they're databases, doesn't mean they're even > > remotely similar. > > True, but the fact remains that it means operators (and developers) would > have > to become familiar with the quirks and problems of yet another piece of > technology. > Indeed! And we can get really opinionated here now that we have some experience I think. Personally, I'd rather become familiar with the quirks and problems of Cassandra, than try to become familiar with the quirks and problems of OpenStack's invented complex workarounds for high scale state management cells. So I agree with the statement that the cost of adding a technology should be weighed. However, the cost of inventing a workaround should be weighed with the same scale. Complex workarounds will, in most cases, weigh much more than adopting a well known and proven technology that is aimed at what turns out to be a common problem set. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Scheduler proposal
Excerpts from Maish Saidel-Keesing's message of 2015-10-08 00:14:55 -0700: > Forgive the top-post. > > Cross-posting to openstack-operators for their feedback as well. > > Ed the work seems very promising, and I am interested to see how this > evolves. > > With my operator hat on I have one piece of feedback. > > By adding in a new Database solution (Cassandra) we are now up to three > different database solutions in use in OpenStack > > MySQL (practically everything) > MongoDB (Ceilometer) > Cassandra. > > Not to mention two different message queues > Kafka (Monasca) > RabbitMQ (everything else) > > Operational overhead has a cost - maintaining 3 different database > tools, backing them up, providing HA, etc. has operational cost. > > This is not to say that this cannot be overseen, but it should be taken > into consideration. > > And *if* they can be consolidated into an agreed solution across the > whole of OpenStack - that would be highly beneficial (IMHO). > Just because they both say they're databases, doesn't mean they're even remotely similar. __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Openstack-operators] Scheduler proposal
On 2015-10-08 00:37:31 -0700 (-0700), Clint Byrum wrote: > Excerpts from Maish Saidel-Keesing's message of 2015-10-08 00:14:55 -0700: [...] > > By adding in a new Database solution (Cassandra) we are now up to three > > different database solutions in use in OpenStack > > > > MySQL (practically everything) > > MongoDB (Ceilometer) > > Cassandra. [...] > > Just because they both say they're databases, doesn't mean they're even > remotely similar. The DNS is a database too. For that matter, so are filesystems. Different kinds of databases are useful for different kinds of tasks, and no one database is ideal for everything. -- Jeremy Stanley __ 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
