openstack team mailing list archive

[George Reese <george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I don't think Cinder should exist.

Sometimes you have to live with the technical debt because that's the best way to preserve the investment your customers have made in your product.

Or if you're very smart, you find a way to refactor that technical debt invisibly to customers.

But you don't make the customer carry the burden of your refactoring technical debt.

-George

On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:52 PM, Jon Mittelhauser wrote:

> How can I disregard a position that you don't have?  (or at least I don't understand yet)  You have failed to provide a position.
> 
> Like I said, I'm fairly new to OpenStack….but I am *very* experienced in open source and operating very large and complex production systems… so I am trying to come up to speed and understand your position…
> 
> Separating out the volume code from the compute code seems like a no-brainer thing that needed to be done.  
> 
> Do you disagree with that basic premise (e.g. That Cinder should exist)?  
> Do you disagree with the way that it was done (e.g. How Cinder is written)?  
> Or do you disagree with the migration strategies proposed (which is what Vish's email was opening discussion about)?  
> 
> Or…??
> 
> -Jon
> 
> From: George Reese <george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2012 12:47 PM
> To: Jon Mittelhauser <jon.mittelhauser@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Brian Waldon <brian.waldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Openstack (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom
> 
> You are mistaking me for caring about the answer to this question.
> 
> This ship has sailed. We are faced with two shitty choices as a result of continued lack of concern by this community for compatibility.
> 
> History? I've been pounding my head against the OpenStack all for years on compatibility and we end up AGAIN in a situation like this where we have two shitty options.
> 
> I'm not offering an opinion or a third option because I just don't give a damn what option is picked since both will suck.
> 
> I'm trying to get everyone to get their heads out of their asses and not stick us yet against in this situation in the future.
> 
> You can discard my position if you want. I really don't give a damn. I just happen to work with a wider variety of OpenStack environments that most others on the list. 
> 
> But whatever.
> 
> -George
> 
> On Jul 12, 2012, at 2:40 PM, Jon Mittelhauser wrote:
> 
>> George,
>> 
>> I am relatively new to this mailing list so I assume that there is some history that is prompting the vehemence but I do not understand what you are trying to accomplish.
>> 
>> Vish sent out two proposed ways for dealing with the migration.  Most of the early voting (including mine) has been for option #1 (happy to explain why if desired) but it isn't like the discussion is over.  If you believe that option #2 is better, please explain why you believe that.  If you believe that there is a 3rd option, please explain it to us.
>> 
>> You are complaining without offering a counter proposal.  That is simply not effective and makes semi-neutral folks (like me) tend to discard your point of view (which I assume is not your objective).
>> 
>> -Jon
>> 
>> From: George Reese <george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:14 AM
>> To: Brian Waldon <brian.waldon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Openstack (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)" <openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack] [nova] [cinder] Nova-volume vs. Cinder in Folsom
>> 
>> Well, I think overall OpenStack has done an absolute shit job of compatibility and I had hoped (and made a huge point of this at the OpenStack conference) Diablo -> Essex would be the end of this compatibility bullshit.
>> 
>> But the attitudes in this thread and with respect to the whole Cinder question in general suggest to me that this cavalier attitude towards forward migration hasn't changed.
>> 
>> So you can kiss my ass.
>> 
>> -George
>> 
>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:11 PM, Brian Waldon wrote:
>> 
>>> We actually care a hell of a lot about compatibility. We also recognize there are times when we have to sacrifice compatibility so we can move forward at a reasonable pace.
>>> 
>>> If you think we are handling anything the wrong way, we would love to hear your suggestions. If you just want to make comments like this, I would suggest you keep them to yourself.
>>> 
>>> Have a great day!
>>> Brian Waldon
>>> 
>>> On Jul 12, 2012, at 9:32 AM, George Reese wrote:
>>> 
>>>> This community just doesn't give a rat's ass about compatibility, does it?
>>>> 
>>>> -George
>>>> 
>>>> On Jul 11, 2012, at 10:26 AM, Vishvananda Ishaya wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Now that the PPB has decided to promote Cinder to core for the Folsom
>>>>> release, we need to decide what happens to the existing Nova Volume
>>>>> code. As far as I can see it there are two basic strategies. I'm going
>>>>> to give an overview of each here:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Option 1 -- Remove Nova Volume
>>>>> ==============================
>>>>> 
>>>>> Process
>>>>> -------
>>>>> * Remove all nova-volume code from the nova project
>>>>> * Leave the existing nova-volume database upgrades and tables in
>>>>>   place for Folsom to allow for migration
>>>>> * Provide a simple script in cinder to copy data from the nova
>>>>>   database to the cinder database (The schema for the tables in
>>>>>   cinder are equivalent to the current nova tables)
>>>>> * Work with package maintainers to provide a package based upgrade
>>>>>   from nova-volume packages to cinder packages
>>>>> * Remove the db tables immediately after Folsom
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disadvantages
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> * Forces deployments to go through the process of migrating to cinder
>>>>>   if they want to use volumes in the Folsom release
>>>>> 
>>>>> Option 2 -- Deprecate Nova Volume
>>>>> =================================
>>>>> 
>>>>> Process
>>>>> -------
>>>>> * Mark the nova-volume code deprecated but leave it in the project
>>>>>   for the folsom release
>>>>> * Provide a migration path at folsom
>>>>> * Backport bugfixes to nova-volume throughout the G-cycle
>>>>> * Provide a second migration path at G
>>>>> * Package maintainers can decide when to migrate to cinder
>>>>> 
>>>>> Disadvantages
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> * Extra maintenance effort
>>>>> * More confusion about storage in openstack
>>>>> * More complicated upgrade paths need to be supported
>>>>> 
>>>>> Personally I think Option 1 is a much more manageable strategy because
>>>>> the volume code doesn't get a whole lot of attention. I want to keep
>>>>> things simple and clean with one deployment strategy. My opinion is that
>>>>> if we choose option 2 we will be sacrificing significant feature
>>>>> development in G in order to continue to maintain nova-volume for another
>>>>> release.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But we really need to know if this is going to cause major pain to existing
>>>>> deployments out there. If it causes a bad experience for deployers we
>>>>> need to take our medicine and go with option 2. Keep in mind that it
>>>>> shouldn't make any difference to end users whether cinder or nova-volume
>>>>> is being used. The current nova-client can use either one.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Vish
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>> 
>>>> --
>>>> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
>>>> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese    p: +1.207.956.0217
>>>> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus - http://www.enstratus.com
>>>> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>> Post to     : openstack@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>> 
>> 
>> --
>> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
>> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese    p: +1.207.956.0217
>> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus - http://www.enstratus.com
>> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
>> 
> 
> --
> George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
> e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese    p: +1.207.956.0217
> enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus - http://www.enstratus.com
> To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese
> 

--
George Reese - Chief Technology Officer, enStratus
e: george.reese@xxxxxxxxxxxxx    Skype: nspollution    t: @GeorgeReese    p: +1.207.956.0217
enStratus: Enterprise Cloud Management - @enStratus - http://www.enstratus.com
To schedule a meeting with me: http://tungle.me/GeorgeReese