2014-10-03 9:00 GMT+02:00 Michael Chapman :
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Soren Hansen
> wrote:
>> That said, there will certainly be situations where there'll be a
>> need for some sort of anti-entropy mechanism. It just so happens that
>> those situations already exist. We're dealing with ab
On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 4:05 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> I'm sorry about my slow responses. For some reason, gmail didn't think
> this was an important e-mail :(
>
> 2014-09-30 18:41 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> > On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> >> 2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> >
I'm sorry about my slow responses. For some reason, gmail didn't think
this was an important e-mail :(
2014-09-30 18:41 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
>> 2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> How would I go about getting the associated fixed IPs for a network
On 09/30/2014 02:03 PM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
Joins in Python-land.
I may very well be wrong(!), but this statement make
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-30 09:41:29 -0700:
> A relational database was built for the above types of queries, and
> that's why I said it's the best tool for the job *in this specific case*.
>
> Now... that said...
>
> Is it possible to go through the Nova schema and identify
Excerpts from Jay Pipes's message of 2014-09-30 09:41:29 -0700:
> On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> > 2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> >> If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
> >> on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
On 09/30/2014 08:03 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
Joins in Python-land.
I may very well be wrong(!), but this statement make
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer
> on top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL
> Joins in Python-land.
I may very well be wrong(!), but this statement makes it sound like you've
never used e.g. Ria
2014-09-26 17:11 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> On 09/26/2014 06:45 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
>> Define "best".
> best == most appropriate.
#copout
--
Soren Hansen | http://linux2go.dk/
Ubuntu Developer | http://www.ubuntu.com/
OpenStack Developer | http://www.openstack.org/
___
On 09/26/2014 06:45 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer on
top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL Joins in
Python-land. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In Nova
2014-09-12 1:05 GMT+02:00 Jay Pipes :
> If Nova was to take Soren's advice and implement its data-access layer on
> top of Cassandra or Riak, we would just end up re-inventing SQL Joins in
> Python-land. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. In Nova at least,
> the SQL schema is complex becau
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-12 00:22:35 -0700:
> On 09/12/2014 03:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-09-11 15:21:26 -0700:
> >> On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >>> Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -070
On 09/12/2014 01:56 PM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
>> Flavio Percoco wrote:
>>> On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
The final question is the one of arbitrary access to messages in the
queue (or "queue" if you prefer). Flavio indicated tha
On 09/12/2014 09:50 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Zaqar supports once and only once delivery.
For the transfer from Zaqar to consumers it does (providing the claim id
can be recovered). For transfer from producers to Zaqar I believe it is
more limited.
If the connection to Zaqar fails during a
On 12/09/14 04:50, Flavio Percoco wrote:
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>However, Zaqar also supports the Pub-Sub model of messaging. I believe,
>but would like Flavio to confirm, that this is what is meant when the
>Zaqar team say that Zaqar is about messaging in general and not jus
On 11/09/14 19:05, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 09/11/2014 04:09 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
Swift is the current exception here, but one could argue, and people
have[2], that Swift is also the only project that actually conforms to
our stated design tenets for OpenStack. I'd struggle to tell the Zaqar
folks
On 09/12/2014 11:36 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>>> The final question is the one of arbitrary access to messages in the
>>> queue (or "queue" if you prefer). Flavio indicated that this effectively
>>> came for free with their impl
On Wed, 2014-09-10 at 12:46 -0700, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 09/09/2014 07:04 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
> > On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> >> The questions now before us are:
> >> - should OpenStack include, in the integrated release, a
> >> messaging-as-a-service component?
>
Flavio Percoco wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
>> The final question is the one of arbitrary access to messages in the
>> queue (or "queue" if you prefer). Flavio indicated that this effectively
>> came for free with their implementation of Pub-Sub. IMHO it is
>> unnecessary and
On 09/12/2014 12:14 AM, Zane Bitter wrote:
> On 09/09/14 15:03, Monty Taylor wrote:
>> On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
On 09/12/2014 03:29 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-09-11 15:21:26 -0700:
>> On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM
Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2014-09-11 15:21:26 -0700:
> On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
> >> On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> >>> On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Flav
On 09/11/2014 04:09 PM, Zane Bitter wrote:
Swift is the current exception here, but one could argue, and people
have[2], that Swift is also the only project that actually conforms to
our stated design tenets for OpenStack. I'd struggle to tell the Zaqar
folks they've done the Wrong Thing... espec
On 09/09/14 19:56, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC h
On 09/09/14 15:03, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns b
On 04/09/14 08:14, Sean Dague wrote:
I've been one of the consistent voices concerned about a hard
requirement on adding NoSQL into the mix. So I'll explain that thinking
a bit more.
I feel like when the TC makes an integration decision previously this
has been about evaluating the project appl
On 09/10/2014 12:56 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> I reject soundly and fundamentally the idea that Open Source projects
> NEED a commercial ecosystem to provide solid quality software.
That's not what I said. I said that assuring the quality of code on a
public repository is not necessarily something
On 09/10/2014 10:29 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
a. An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
early LBaaS packages)
b. A project which has lost its initial steam and fur
On 09/09/2014 07:04 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt
wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
does NOT need to diver
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefano Maffulli [mailto:stef...@openstack.org]
> Sent: 10 September 2014 19:29
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
> the TC meeting
>
> On 09/05/2014
On 09/05/2014 12:36 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> How can the average deployer know whether a stackforge is
>
> a. An early prototype which has completed (such as some of the
> early LBaaS packages)
>
> b. A project which has lost its initial steam and further
> investment is not foreseen
>
>
On 09/10/2014 12:47 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
As was pointed out in the TC meeting today, Zaqar is (was?) actually
aiming to provide Messaging-as-a-Service -- not queueing as a service!
This is another way of saying "it's more like email and less like
AMQP"
The glossary[1] describes a m
On Tue, 9 Sep 2014, Samuel Merritt wrote:
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
The questions now before us are:
- should OpenStack include, in the integrated release, a
messaging-as-a-service component?
I certainly think so. I've worked on a few reasonable-scale web applications,
On 09/10/2014 01:47 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
>> On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
>>> So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
>>> does NOT need to diverge in technology in any way, but
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 19:04:58 -0700:
> On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
> >> On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > [snip]
> >>> So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thin
On 9/9/14, 4:47 PM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
does NOT need to diverge in technology in any way, but that I've been
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Boris Pavlovic wrote:
>
> Devananda,
>>
>>
>> While that is de rigueur today, it's actually at the core of the
>> current problem space. Blessing a project by integrating it is not a
>> scalable long-term solution. We don't have a model to integrate >1
>> project fo
Devananda,
> While that is de rigueur today, it's actually at the core of the
> current problem space. Blessing a project by integrating it is not a
> scalable long-term solution. We don't have a model to integrate >1
> project for the same space // of the same type, or to bless the
> stability
*"should OpenStack include, in the integrated release,
a messaging-as-a-service component"*
Assuming this is truly a question that represents where we are and not
exploratory of what we might want to address, I would say the answer is a
resounding no, as queuing is within the scope of what Opensta
Excerpts from Devananda van der Veen's message of 2014-09-09 16:47:27 -0700:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
> > On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> [snip]
> >> So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
> >> does NOT need to diverge in t
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 1:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths
wrote:
[snip]
> Does a Qpid/Rabbit/Kafka provisioning service make sense? Probably. Would
> such a service totally overlap in terms of use-cases with Zaqar? Community
> feedback suggests otherwise. Will there be some other kind of thing that
> comes o
Excerpts from Samuel Merritt's message of 2014-09-09 16:12:09 -0700:
> On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
> > On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> >> Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
> >>> Greetings,
> >>>
> >>> Last Tuesday the TC held the first gr
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Samuel Merritt wrote:
> On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
[snip]
>> So which is it? Because it sounds like to me it's a thing that actually
>> does NOT need to diverge in technology in any way, but that I've been
>> told that it needs to diverge because it's
On 9/9/14, 12:03 PM, Monty Taylor wrote:
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns
On 09/04/2014 01:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
some comments hoping that it w
ailto:dtro...@gmail.com]
Sent: 05 September 2014 19:11
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during the
TC meeting
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Thierry Carrez
mailto:thie...@openstack.org>> wrote:
Tim B
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:27 AM, Thierry Carrez
wrote:
> Tim Bell wrote:
> > The one concern I have with a small core is that there is not an easy
> way to assess the maturity of a project on stackforge. The stackforge
> projects may be missing packaging, Red Hat testing, puppet modules,
> install
2014-09-05 9:09 GMT-03:00 Sean Dague :
> On 09/05/2014 07:39 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> > On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague wrote:
> >
> >> I think realistically a self certification process that would have
> >> artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
> >> lines
On 09/04/2014 01:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
https://dague.net/2014/08/26/openstack-as-layers/
Just wanted to say that I found this article very useful indeed and
agree with the points you make in it.
___
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists
On 09/04/2014 09:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Does a Qpid/Rabbit/Kafka provisioning service make sense? Probably.
I think something like that would be valuable, especially in conjunction
with some application layer proxying and mapping between 'virtual'
addresses/endpoints and specific queues
On 09/05/2014 07:39 AM, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague wrote:
>
>> I think realistically a self certification process that would have
>> artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
>> lines of a baseball card interface with a short descript
On 5 September 2014 23:33, Sean Dague wrote:
> I think realistically a self certification process that would have
> artifacts in a discoverable place. I was thinking something along the
> lines of a baseball card interface with a short description of the
> project, a list of the requirements to d
On 5 September 2014 08:44, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
> In fact, I personally have long been a proponent of using the best tool
> for the job. The Zaqar project was kicked off at an unconference session
> several summits ago because the community saw a need that was not covered
> by other messaging sy
On 09/05/2014 05:27 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Tim Bell wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
>>> Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
>>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>>> Subject: Re: [opens
On 09/04/2014 09:44 PM, Kurt Griffiths wrote:
Thanks for your comments Gordon. I appreciate where you are coming from
and I think we are actually in agreement on a lot of things.
I just want to make it clear that from the very beginning of the project
the team has tried to communicate (but perha
Tim Bell wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
>> Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
>> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
>> t
On 09/04/2014 07:08 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 06:01:45 -0700:
>> On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
>>> On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar.
Thanks for your comments Gordon. I appreciate where you are coming from
and I think we are actually in agreement on a lot of things.
I just want to make it clear that from the very beginning of the project
the team has tried to communicate (but perhaps could have done a better
job at it) that we a
On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Tim Bell wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> > Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
> > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments
> -Original Message-
> From: Thierry Carrez [mailto:thie...@openstack.org]
> Sent: 04 September 2014 16:59
> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Zaqar] Comments on the concerns arose during
> the TC meeting
>
> Sean Dague wrote:
&g
Hi Flavio,
On 09/04/2014 08:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
- Concern on should we really reinvent a queue system rather than
piggyback on one
As mentioned in the meeting on Tuesday, Zaqar is not reinventing message
brokers. Zaqar provides a service akin to SQS from AWS with an OpenStack
flavor on
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 02:11:15 -0700:
> Hey Clint,
>
> Thanks for reading, some comments in-line:
>
> On 09/04/2014 10:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> - Concern on should we reall
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 06:01:45 -0700:
> On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> > On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >> Greetings,
> >>
> >> Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
> >> the meeting some concerns arose. I
On 09/04/2014 04:59 PM, Thierry Carrez wrote:
> Sean Dague wrote:
>> [...]
>> So, honestly, I'll probably remain -1 on the final integration vote, not
>> because Zaqar is bad, but because I'm feeling more firmly that for
>> OpenStack to not leave the small deployers behind we need to redefine
>> th
Sean Dague wrote:
> [...]
> So, honestly, I'll probably remain -1 on the final integration vote, not
> because Zaqar is bad, but because I'm feeling more firmly that for
> OpenStack to not leave the small deployers behind we need to redefine
> the tightly integrated piece of OpenStack to basically
On 09/04/2014 02:14 PM, Sean Dague wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
>> the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
>> some comments hoping that it will help st
On 09/04/2014 01:15 PM, Chris Dent wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Flavio Percoco wrote:
>
> Thanks for writing this up, interesting read.
>
Thank you for your feedback :)
Some comments in-line.
>> 5. Ceilometer's recommended storage driver is still MongoDB, although
>> Ceilometer has now support
On 09/04/2014 03:08 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
> the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
> some comments hoping that it will help starting a discussion before the
> next meeting. I
On Thu, 4 Sep 2014, Flavio Percoco wrote:
Thanks for writing this up, interesting read.
5. Ceilometer's recommended storage driver is still MongoDB, although
Ceilometer has now support for sqlalchemy. (Please correct me if I'm wrong).
For sake of reference: Yes, MongoDB is currently the recom
Hey Clint,
Thanks for reading, some comments in-line:
On 09/04/2014 10:30 AM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
[snip]
>> - Concern on should we really reinvent a queue system rather than
>> piggyback on one
>>
>> As mentioned in the meeti
Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2014-09-04 00:08:47 -0700:
> Greetings,
>
> Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
> the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
> some comments hoping that it will help starting a discussion befor
Greetings,
Last Tuesday the TC held the first graduation review for Zaqar. During
the meeting some concerns arose. I've listed those concerns below with
some comments hoping that it will help starting a discussion before the
next meeting. In addition, I've added some comments about the project
sta
72 matches
Mail list logo
