settingsLogin | Registersettings

[openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

0 votes

Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration in
IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases. Today
it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the
project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by
the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments,
acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with
a mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal
to re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both
structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a
detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the
recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so
that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it
in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a
bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant
amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have
consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present,
this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and
come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing
Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work
beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will
be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it
becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1
through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no
production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build
that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial
bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who
have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who
have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this,
all I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please
commit the development resources to participate in the community to make
that possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will
only make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in
v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning; making
    the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a shared
    management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic,
    per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security
    hole

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova VM
    specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things like
    containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t
    reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far
    along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an
    opportunity to fix that now

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a
    state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing
    database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful
    entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a
    serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying
    storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default
    configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

  • The CI should test all databases that are considered to be ‘supported’
    without excessive use of resources in the gate; better code modularization
    will help determine the tests which can safely be skipped in testing changes

  • Clusters should be first class citizens not an afterthought, single
    instance databases may be the ‘special case’, not the other way around

  • The project must provide guest images (or at least complete tooling for
    deployers to build these); while the project can’t distribute operating
    systems and database software, the current deployment model merely impedes
    adoption

  • Clusters spanning OpenStack deployments are a real thing that must be
    supported

This might sound harsh, that isn’t the intent. Each of these is the
consequence of one or more perfectly rational decisions. Some of those
decisions have had unintended consequences, and others were made knowing
that we would be incurring some technical debt; debt we have not had the
time or resources to address. Fixing all these is not impossible, it just
takes the dedication of resources by the community.

I do not have a complete design for what the new Trove would look like. For
example, I don’t know how we will interact with other projects (like Heat).
Many questions remain to be explored and answered.

Would it suffice to just use the existing Heat resources and build
templates around those, or will it be better to implement custom Trove
resources and then orchestrate things based on those resources?

Would Trove implement the workflows required for multi-stage database
operations by itself, or would it rely on some other project (say Mistral)
for this? Is Mistral really a workflow service, or just cron on steroids? I
don’t know the answer but I would like to find out.

While we don’t have the answers to these questions, I think this is a
conversation that we must have, one that we must decide on, and then as a
community commit the resources required to make a Trove v2 which delivers
on the mission of the project; “To provide scalable and reliable Cloud
Database as a Service provisioning functionality for both relational and
non-relational database engines, and to continue to improve its
fully-featured and extensible open source framework.”[2]

Thanks,

-amrith​

[1] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove#Mission_Statement


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
asked Jul 18, 2017 in openstack-dev by amrith.kumar_at_gmai (3,580 points)   2 3

41 Responses

0 votes

Amrith Kumar wrote:
[...]
An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating
existing Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively,
with work beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released
with Pike will be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to
Trove v2 when it becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove
v1 through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are
no production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to
build that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the
proverbial bridge from nowhere.
[...]
From an OpenStack project naming perspective, IMHO the line between a
"v2" and a completely new project (with a new name) is whether you
provide an upgrade path. I feel like if you won't support v1 users at
all (and I understand the reasons why you wouldn't), the new project
should not be called "Trove v2", but "Hoard". I don't really want to set
a precedent of breaking users by restarting from scratch and calling it
"v2", while everywhere else we encourage projects to never break their
users.

In all cases, providing offline tooling to migrate your Trove resources
to Hoard equivalents would be a nice plus, but I'd say that this tooling
is likely to appear if there is a need. Just be receptive to the idea of
adding that in a tools/ directory :)

--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 19, 2017 by Thierry_Carrez (57,480 points)   3 8 13
0 votes

Thanks for starting this difficult discussion.

I think I agree with all the lessons learned except the nova one. while you can treat containers and vm's the same, after years of using both, I really don't think its a good idea to treat them equally. Containers can't work properly if used as a vm. (really, really.)

I agree whole heartedly with your statement that its mostly an orchestration problem and should reuse stuff now that there are options.

I would propose the following that I think meets your goals and could widen your contributor base substantially:

Look at the Kubernetes (k8s) concept of Operator -> https://coreos.com/blog/introducing-operators.html

They allow application specific logic to be added to Kubernetes while reusing the rest of k8s to do what its good at. Container Orchestration. etcd is just a clustered database and if the operator concept works for it, it should also work for other databases such as Gallera.

Where I think the containers/vm thing is incompatible is the thing I think will make Trove's life easier. You can think of a member of the database as few different components, such as:
* main database process
* metrics gatherer (such as https://github.com/prometheus/mysqld_exporter)
* troveguestagent

With the current approach, all are mixed into the same vm image, making it very difficult to update the troveguestagent without touching the main database process. (needed when you upgrade the trove controllers). With the k8s sidecar concept, each would be a separate container loaded into the same pod.

So rather then needing to maintain a trove image for every possible combination of db version, trove version, etc, you can reuse upstream database containers along with trove provided guest agents.

There's a secure channel between kube-apiserver and kubelet so you can reuse it for secure communications. No need to add anything for secure communication. trove engine -> kubectl exec xxxxx-db -c guest_agent some command.

There is k8s federation, so if the operator was started at the federation level, it can cross multiple OpenStack regions.

Another big feature I that hasn't been mentioned yet that I think is critical. In our performance tests, databases in VM's have never performed particularly well. Using k8s as a base, bare metal nodes could be pulled in easily, with dedicated disk or ssd's that the pods land on that are very very close to the database. This should give native performance.

So, my suggestion would be to strongly consider basing Trove v2 on Kubernetes. It can provide a huge bang for the buck, simplifying the Trove architecture substantially while gaining the new features your list as being important. The Trove v2 OpenStack api can be exposed as a very thin wrapper over k8s Third Party Resources (TPR) and would make Trove entirely stateless. k8s maintains all state for everything in etcd.

Please consider this architecture.

Thanks,
Kevin


From: Amrith Kumar [amrith.kumar@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 18, 2017 4:35 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: [openstack-dev] [trove][all][tc] A proposal to rearchitect Trove

Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration in IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases. Today it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments, acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with a mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal to re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present, this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1 through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this, all I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please commit the development resources to participate in the community to make that possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will only make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning; making the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a shared management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic, per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security hole

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova VM specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things like containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an opportunity to fix that now

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

  • The CI should test all databases that are considered to be ‘supported’ without excessive use of resources in the gate; better code modularization will help determine the tests which can safely be skipped in testing changes

  • Clusters should be first class citizens not an afterthought, single instance databases may be the ‘special case’, not the other way around

  • The project must provide guest images (or at least complete tooling for deployers to build these); while the project can’t distribute operating systems and database software, the current deployment model merely impedes adoption

  • Clusters spanning OpenStack deployments are a real thing that must be supported

This might sound harsh, that isn’t the intent. Each of these is the consequence of one or more perfectly rational decisions. Some of those decisions have had unintended consequences, and others were made knowing that we would be incurring some technical debt; debt we have not had the time or resources to address. Fixing all these is not impossible, it just takes the dedication of resources by the community.

I do not have a complete design for what the new Trove would look like. For example, I don’t know how we will interact with other projects (like Heat). Many questions remain to be explored and answered.

Would it suffice to just use the existing Heat resources and build templates around those, or will it be better to implement custom Trove resources and then orchestrate things based on those resources?

Would Trove implement the workflows required for multi-stage database operations by itself, or would it rely on some other project (say Mistral) for this? Is Mistral really a workflow service, or just cron on steroids? I don’t know the answer but I would like to find out.

While we don’t have the answers to these questions, I think this is a conversation that we must have, one that we must decide on, and then as a community commit the resources required to make a Trove v2 which delivers on the mission of the project; “To provide scalable and reliable Cloud Database as a Service provisioning functionality for both relational and non-relational database engines, and to continue to improve its fully-featured and extensible open source framework.”[2]

Thanks,

-amrith​

[1] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove#Mission_Statement


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 19, 2017 by Fox,_Kevin_M (29,360 points)   1 3 4
0 votes

Amrith,

Some good thoughts in your email. I've replied to a few specific pieces
below. Overall I think it's a good start to a plan.

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Amrith Kumar amrith.kumar@gmail.com
wrote:

Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration
in IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases.
Today it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the
project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by
the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments,
acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with
a mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal
to re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both
structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a
detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the
recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so
that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it
in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a
bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant
amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have
consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present,
this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and
come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing
Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work
beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will
be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it
becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1
through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no
production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build
that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial
bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who
have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who
have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this,
all I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please
commit the development resources to participate in the community to make
that possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will
only make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in
v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning;
    making the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a
    shared management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic,
    per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security
    hole

This was a major concern when we deployed it and drove the architectural
decisions. I'd be glad to see it resolved or re-architected.

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova
    VM specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things
    like containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t
    reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far
    along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an
    opportunity to fix that now

+1

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a
    state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing
    database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful
    entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a
    serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying
    storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default
    configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

+1 to this also. Trove should offer a black box DB as a Service, not
something the user sees as an instance+storage that they feel that they can
manipulate.

  • The CI should test all databases that are considered to be ‘supported’
    without excessive use of resources in the gate; better code modularization
    will help determine the tests which can safely be skipped in testing changes

I would add that reducing the focus on adding more and more DBs, rather
than having a few very well supported ones would help in your Trove reboot.

  • Clusters should be first class citizens not an afterthought, single
    instance databases may be the ‘special case’, not the other way around

This is how we positioned Trove when it was deployed. A single node DB is
not a very cloudy solution when you have to do maintenance or lose a
hypervisor. I'd consider clusters the main use case. We discouraged anyone
from using non-clustered solutions except for trying out Trove.

  • The project must provide guest images (or at least complete tooling for
    deployers to build these); while the project can’t distribute operating
    systems and database software, the current deployment model merely impedes
    adoption

  • Clusters spanning OpenStack deployments are a real thing that must be
    supported

or regions

This might sound harsh, that isn’t the intent. Each of these is the
consequence of one or more perfectly rational decisions. Some of those
decisions have had unintended consequences, and others were made knowing
that we would be incurring some technical debt; debt we have not had the
time or resources to address. Fixing all these is not impossible, it just
takes the dedication of resources by the community.

I do not have a complete design for what the new Trove would look like.
For example, I don’t know how we will interact with other projects (like
Heat). Many questions remain to be explored and answered.

Would it suffice to just use the existing Heat resources and build
templates around those, or will it be better to implement custom Trove
resources and then orchestrate things based on those resources?

Would Trove implement the workflows required for multi-stage database
operations by itself, or would it rely on some other project (say Mistral)
for this? Is Mistral really a workflow service, or just cron on steroids? I
don’t know the answer but I would like to find out.

While we don’t have the answers to these questions, I think this is a
conversation that we must have, one that we must decide on, and then as a
community commit the resources required to make a Trove v2 which delivers
on the mission of the project; “To provide scalable and reliable Cloud
Database as a Service provisioning functionality for both relational and
non-relational database engines, and to continue to improve its
fully-featured and extensible open source framework.”[2]

Thanks,

-amrith​

[1] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove#Mission_Statement


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@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-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 19, 2017 by Matt_Fischer (9,340 points)   1 4 7
0 votes

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Amrith Kumar amrith.kumar@gmail.com wrote:
Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration in
IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases. Today
it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the
project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by
the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments,
acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with a
mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal to
re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both
structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a
detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the
recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so
that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it
in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a
bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant
amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have
consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present,
this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and
come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing
Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work
beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will
be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it
becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1
through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no
production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build
that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial
bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who
have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who
have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this, all
I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please commit
the development resources to participate in the community to make that
possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will only
make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in
v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning; making
    the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a shared
    management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic,
    per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security
    hole

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova VM
    specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things like
    containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t
    reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far
    along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an
    opportunity to fix that now

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a
    state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing
    database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful
    entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a
    serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying
    storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default
    configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

As an operator I wouldn't run Trove as it is, unless I absolutely had to.

I think it is a good idea to reboot the project. I really think the
concept of "service VMs" should be a thing. I'm not sure where the
OpenStack community has landed on that, my fault for not paying close
attention, but we should be able to create VMs for a tenant that are
not managed by the tenant but that could be billed to them in some
fashion. At least that's my opinion.

  • The CI should test all databases that are considered to be ‘supported’
    without excessive use of resources in the gate; better code modularization
    will help determine the tests which can safely be skipped in testing changes

  • Clusters should be first class citizens not an afterthought, single
    instance databases may be the ‘special case’, not the other way around

Definitely agree on that. Cluster first model.

  • The project must provide guest images (or at least complete tooling for
    deployers to build these); while the project can’t distribute operating
    systems and database software, the current deployment model merely impedes
    adoption

  • Clusters spanning OpenStack deployments are a real thing that must be
    supported

I'm curious as to how this will be done. This is a requirement in
NFV-land as well for other services. Would be very powerful and is
needed in other areas.

Thanks,
Curtis.

This might sound harsh, that isn’t the intent. Each of these is the
consequence of one or more perfectly rational decisions. Some of those
decisions have had unintended consequences, and others were made knowing
that we would be incurring some technical debt; debt we have not had the
time or resources to address. Fixing all these is not impossible, it just
takes the dedication of resources by the community.

I do not have a complete design for what the new Trove would look like. For
example, I don’t know how we will interact with other projects (like Heat).
Many questions remain to be explored and answered.

Would it suffice to just use the existing Heat resources and build templates
around those, or will it be better to implement custom Trove resources and
then orchestrate things based on those resources?

Would Trove implement the workflows required for multi-stage database
operations by itself, or would it rely on some other project (say Mistral)
for this? Is Mistral really a workflow service, or just cron on steroids? I
don’t know the answer but I would like to find out.

While we don’t have the answers to these questions, I think this is a
conversation that we must have, one that we must decide on, and then as a
community commit the resources required to make a Trove v2 which delivers on
the mission of the project; “To provide scalable and reliable Cloud Database
as a Service provisioning functionality for both relational and
non-relational database engines, and to continue to improve its
fully-featured and extensible open source framework.”[2]

Thanks,

-amrith

[1] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove#Mission_Statement


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
Blog: serverascode.com


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Curtis (4,180 points)   2 4
0 votes

On 20/06/17 12:56, Curtis wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Amrith Kumar amrith.kumar@gmail.com wrote:

Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration in
IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases. Today
it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the
project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by
the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments,
acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with a
mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal to
re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both
structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a
detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the
recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so
that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it
in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a
bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant
amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have
consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present,
this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and
come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing
Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work
beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will
be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it
becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1
through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no
production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build
that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial
bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who
have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who
have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this, all
I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please commit
the development resources to participate in the community to make that
possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will only
make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in
v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning; making
    the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a shared
    management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic,
    per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security
    hole

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova VM
    specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things like
    containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t
    reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far
    along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an
    opportunity to fix that now

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a
    state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing
    database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful
    entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a
    serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying
    storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default
    configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

As an operator I wouldn't run Trove as it is, unless I absolutely had to.

I think it is a good idea to reboot the project. I really think the
concept of "service VMs" should be a thing. I'm not sure where the
OpenStack community has landed on that, my fault for not paying close
attention, but we should be able to create VMs for a tenant that are
not managed by the tenant but that could be billed to them in some
fashion. At least that's my opinion.

Re the 'service VMs', yep, it could be very useful. And in Zaqar, we're
working on a spec to support 'service queue', similar like the 'service
VMs', so that the service user can create queues in user's tenant. And I
can imagine Trove could benefit from that feature as well.

  • The CI should test all databases that are considered to be ‘supported’
    without excessive use of resources in the gate; better code modularization
    will help determine the tests which can safely be skipped in testing changes

  • Clusters should be first class citizens not an afterthought, single
    instance databases may be the ‘special case’, not the other way around
    Definitely agree on that. Cluster first model.

  • The project must provide guest images (or at least complete tooling for
    deployers to build these); while the project can’t distribute operating
    systems and database software, the current deployment model merely impedes
    adoption

  • Clusters spanning OpenStack deployments are a real thing that must be
    supported

I'm curious as to how this will be done. This is a requirement in
NFV-land as well for other services. Would be very powerful and is
needed in other areas.

Thanks,
Curtis.

This might sound harsh, that isn’t the intent. Each of these is the
consequence of one or more perfectly rational decisions. Some of those
decisions have had unintended consequences, and others were made knowing
that we would be incurring some technical debt; debt we have not had the
time or resources to address. Fixing all these is not impossible, it just
takes the dedication of resources by the community.

I do not have a complete design for what the new Trove would look like. For
example, I don’t know how we will interact with other projects (like Heat).
Many questions remain to be explored and answered.

Would it suffice to just use the existing Heat resources and build templates
around those, or will it be better to implement custom Trove resources and
then orchestrate things based on those resources?

Would Trove implement the workflows required for multi-stage database
operations by itself, or would it rely on some other project (say Mistral)
for this? Is Mistral really a workflow service, or just cron on steroids? I
don’t know the answer but I would like to find out.

While we don’t have the answers to these questions, I think this is a
conversation that we must have, one that we must decide on, and then as a
community commit the resources required to make a Trove v2 which delivers on
the mission of the project; “To provide scalable and reliable Cloud Database
as a Service provisioning functionality for both relational and
non-relational database engines, and to continue to improve its
fully-featured and extensible open source framework.”[2]

Thanks,

-amrith

[1] https://www.openstack.org/assets/survey/April2017SurveyReport.pdf
[2] https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Trove#Mission_Statement


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

--
Cheers & Best regards,
Feilong Wang (王飞龙)


Senior Cloud Software Engineer
Tel: +64-48032246
Email: flwang@catalyst.net.nz
Catalyst IT Limited
Level 6, Catalyst House, 150 Willis Street, Wellington


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Fei_Long_Wang (4,460 points)   3 3
0 votes

On 19/06/17 20:56, Curtis wrote:
I really think the
concept of "service VMs" should be a thing. I'm not sure where the
OpenStack community has landed on that, my fault for not paying close
attention, but we should be able to create VMs for a tenant that are
not managed by the tenant but that could be billed to them in some
fashion. At least that's my opinion.

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438134/


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Zane_Bitter (21,640 points)   4 6 9
0 votes

Excerpts from Curtis's message of 2017-06-19 18:56:25 -0600:

On Sun, Jun 18, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Amrith Kumar amrith.kumar@gmail.com wrote:

Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration in
IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases. Today
it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the
project, there are few large production deployments that are known of (by
the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company realignments,
acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in particular, coupled with a
mounting burden of technical debt have prompted me to make this proposal to
re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both
structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a
detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely the
recommendation that the community should come together and develop one so
that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish to use it
in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a
bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a significant
amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have
consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at present,
this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn from our v1 and
come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating existing
Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively, with work
beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released with Pike will
be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to Trove v2 when it
becomes available.

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove v1
through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are no
production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to build
that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the proverbial
bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those who
have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are those who
have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would suffer. To this, all
I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to you, then please commit
the development resources to participate in the community to make that
possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove or delaying it will only
make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that in
v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning; making
    the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a shared
    management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting traffic,
    per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick on a security
    hole

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova VM
    specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things like
    containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t
    reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as far
    along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we have an
    opportunity to fix that now

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a
    state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in implementing
    database specific operations. This makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful
    entity. Some of the operations could take a fair amount of time. This is a
    serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the underlying
    storage and compute used by database instances; that should be the default
    configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

As an operator I wouldn't run Trove as it is, unless I absolutely had to.

I think it is a good idea to reboot the project. I really think the
concept of "service VMs" should be a thing. I'm not sure where the
OpenStack community has landed on that, my fault for not paying close
attention, but we should be able to create VMs for a tenant that are
not managed by the tenant but that could be billed to them in some
fashion. At least that's my opinion.

Does "service VM" need to be a first-class thing? Akanda creates
them, using a service user. The VMs are tied to a "router" which
is the billable resource that the user understands and interacts with
through the API.

Doug


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Doug_Hellmann (87,520 points)   3 4 9
0 votes

On 06/20/2017 09:42 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:
Does "service VM" need to be a first-class thing? Akanda creates
them, using a service user. The VMs are tied to a "router" which
is the billable resource that the user understands and interacts with
through the API.

Frankly, I believe all of these types of services should be built as
applications that run on OpenStack (or other) infrastructure. In other
words, they should not be part of the infrastructure itself.

There's really no need for a user of a DBaaS to have access to the host
or hosts the DB is running on. If the user really wanted that, they
would just spin up a VM/baremetal server and install the thing themselves.

Best,
-jay


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Jay_Pipes (59,760 points)   3 10 14
0 votes

On 18/06/17 07:35, Amrith Kumar wrote:
Trove has evolved rapidly over the past several years, since integration
in IceHouse when it only supported single instances of a few databases.
Today it supports a dozen databases including clusters and replication.

The user survey [1] indicates that while there is strong interest in the
project, there are few large production deployments that are known of
(by the development team).

Recent changes in the OpenStack community at large (company
realignments, acquisitions, layoffs) and the Trove community in
particular, coupled with a mounting burden of technical debt have
prompted me to make this proposal to re-architect Trove.

This email summarizes several of the issues that face the project, both
structurally and architecturally. This email does not claim to include a
detailed specification for what the new Trove would look like, merely
the recommendation that the community should come together and develop
one so that the project can be sustainable and useful to those who wish
to use it in the future.

TL;DR

Trove, with support for a dozen or so databases today, finds itself in a
bind because there are few developers, and a code-base with a
significant amount of technical debt.

Some architectural choices which the team made over the years have
consequences which make the project less than ideal for deployers.

Given that there are no major production deployments of Trove at
present, this provides us an opportunity to reset the project, learn
from our v1 and come up with a strong v2.

An important aspect of making this proposal work is that we seek to
eliminate the effort (planning, and coding) involved in migrating
existing Trove v1 deployments to the proposed Trove v2. Effectively,
with work beginning on Trove v2 as proposed here, Trove v1 as released
with Pike will be marked as deprecated and users will have to migrate to
Trove v2 when it becomes available.

I'm personally fine with not having a migration path (because I'm not
personally running Trove v1 ;) although Thierry's point about choosing a
different name is valid and surely something the TC will want to weigh
in on.

However, I am always concerned about throwing out working code and
rewriting from scratch. I'd be more comfortable if I saw some value
being salvaged from the existing Trove project, other than as just an
extended PoC/learning exercise. Would the API be similar to the current
Trove one? Can at least some tests be salvaged to rapidly increase
confidence that the new code works as expected?

While I would very much like to continue to support the users on Trove
v1 through this transition, the simple fact is that absent community
participation this will be impossible. Furthermore, given that there are
no production deployments of Trove at this time, it seems pointless to
build that upgrade path from Trove v1 to Trove v2; it would be the
proverbial bridge from nowhere.

This (previous) statement is, I realize, contentious. There are those
who have told me that an upgrade path must be provided, and there are
those who have told me of unnamed deployments of Trove that would
suffer. To this, all I can say is that if an upgrade path is of value to
you, then please commit the development resources to participate in the
community to make that possible. But equally, preventing a v2 of Trove
or delaying it will only make the v1 that we have today less valuable.

We have learned a lot from v1, and the hope is that we can address that
in v2. Some of the more significant things that I have learned are:

  • We should adopt a versioned front-end API from the very beginning;
    making the REST API versioned is not a ‘v2 feature’

  • A guest agent running on a tenant instance, with connectivity to a
    shared management message bus is a security loophole; encrypting
    traffic, per-tenant-passwords, and any other scheme is merely lipstick
    on a security hole

Totally agree here, any component of the architecture that is accessed
directly by multiple tenants needs to be natively multi-tenant. I
believe this has been one of the barriers to adoption.

  • Reliance on Nova for compute resources is fine, but dependence on Nova
    VM specific capabilities (like instance rebuild) is not; it makes things
    like containers or bare-metal second class citizens

  • A fair portion of what Trove does is resource orchestration; don’t
    reinvent the wheel, there’s Heat for that. Admittedly, Heat wasn’t as
    far along when Trove got started but that’s not the case today and we
    have an opportunity to fix that now

+1, obviously ;)

Although I also think Kevin's suggestion is worthy of serious consideration.

  • A similarly significant portion of what Trove does is to implement a
    state-machine that will perform specific workflows involved in
    implementing database specific operations. This makes the Trove
    taskmanager a stateful entity. Some of the operations could take a fair
    amount of time. This is a serious architectural flaw

  • Tenants should not ever be able to directly interact with the
    underlying storage and compute used by database instances; that should
    be the default configuration, not an untested deployment alternative

  • The CI should test all databases that are considered to be ‘supported’
    without excessive use of resources in the gate; better code
    modularization will help determine the tests which can safely be skipped
    in testing changes

  • Clusters should be first class citizens not an afterthought, single
    instance databases may be the ‘special case’, not the other way around

  • The project must provide guest images (or at least complete tooling
    for deployers to build these); while the project can’t distribute
    operating systems and database software, the current deployment model
    merely impedes adoption

  • Clusters spanning OpenStack deployments are a real thing that must be
    supported

This might sound harsh, that isn’t the intent. Each of these is the
consequence of one or more perfectly rational decisions. Some of those
decisions have had unintended consequences, and others were made knowing
that we would be incurring some technical debt; debt we have not had the
time or resources to address. Fixing all these is not impossible, it
just takes the dedication of resources by the community.

I do not have a complete design for what the new Trove would look like.
For example, I don’t know how we will interact with other projects (like
Heat). Many questions remain to be explored and answered.

Would it suffice to just use the existing Heat resources and build
templates around those, or will it be better to implement custom Trove
resources and then orchestrate things based on those resources?

(Context: Amrith and I discussed this already)

The idea here is that there are some things that the Heat 'workflow'
doesn't handle by itself - for example, quiescing a server prior to
rebuilding (as opposed to replacing) it. The most obvious way to do that
(discussed in Amrith's next paragraph) is to drive it from some workflow
outside of Heat, with a Heat stack update to rebuild the server as one
of the steps. However, an alternative might be to implement custom Heat
resources that codify the required workflow.

IMHO this doesn't really improve the problem described above ("This
makes the Trove taskmanager a stateful entity. Some of the operations
could take a fair amount of time. This is a serious architectural flaw")
so much as move it around - Heat persists state at the resource level,
but isn't really well set up to handle a lot of state within a resource.

Would Trove implement the workflows required for multi-stage database
operations by itself,

One option to look at here is the taskflow library that Josh and others
wrote. It works well for the case where the workflow can be hard-coded
in code (which I think may fit this use case). It's already used by
Cinder, and perhaps other projects.

or would it rely on some other project (say
Mistral) for this? Is Mistral really a workflow service, or just cron on
steroids? I don’t know the answer but I would like to find out.

Mistral really is a workflow service. It uses YAML rather than Python to
define workflows, so it's better than taskflow for the case where the
workflow needs to be generated at runtime. Obviously it also has the
advantage of a multi-tenant REST API, so it can provide a plugability
point for users to customise. It's possible that neither of those
advantages are relevant in this situation.

One potential advantage of Mistral is that the workflows can be set up
as part of a Heat template. If all of the workflows were set up like
that, it would be easy for users to use the generated templates as a
private database management layer on a cloud that didn't offer it
as-a-Service.

The disadvantage, obviously, is that it requires the cloud to offer
Mistral as-a-Service, which currently doesn't include nearly as many
clouds as I'd like.

While we don’t have the answers to these questions, I think this is a
conversation that we must have, one that we must decide on, and then as
a community commit the resources required to make a Trove v2 which
delivers on the mission of the project; “To provide scalable and
reliable Cloud Database as a Service provisioning functionality for both
relational and non-relational database engines, and to continue to
improve its fully-featured and extensible open source framework.”[2]

+1

cheers,
Zane.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Zane_Bitter (21,640 points)   4 6 9
0 votes

On 20/06/17 10:08, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 06/20/2017 09:42 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote:

Does "service VM" need to be a first-class thing? Akanda creates
them, using a service user. The VMs are tied to a "router" which
is the billable resource that the user understands and interacts with
through the API.

Frankly, I believe all of these types of services should be built as
applications that run on OpenStack (or other) infrastructure. In other
words, they should not be part of the infrastructure itself.

There's really no need for a user of a DBaaS to have access to the host
or hosts the DB is running on. If the user really wanted that, they
would just spin up a VM/baremetal server and install the thing themselves.

Hey Jay,
I'd be interested in exploring this idea with you, because I think
everyone agrees that this would be a good goal, but at least in my mind
it's not obvious what the technical solution should be. (Actually, I've
read your email a bunch of times now, and I go back and forth on which
one you're actually advocating for.) The two options, as I see it, are
as follows:

1) The database VMs are created in the user's tena^W project. They
connect directly to the tenant's networks, are governed by the user's
quota, and are billed to the project as Nova VMs (on top of whatever
additional billing might come along with the management services). A
[future] feature in Nova (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/438134/)
allows the Trove service to lock down access so that the user cannot
actually interact with the server using Nova, but must go through the
Trove API. On a cloud that doesn't include Trove, a user could run Trove
as an application themselves and all it would have to do differently is
not pass the service token to lock down the VM.

alternatively:

2) The database VMs are created in a project belonging to the operator
of the service. They're connected to the user's network through ,
and isolated from other users' databases running in the same project
through . Trove has its
own quota management and billing. The user cannot interact with the
server using Nova since it is owned by a different project. On a cloud
that doesn't include Trove, a user could run Trove as an application
themselves, by giving it credentials for their own project and disabling
all of the cross-tenant networking stuff.

Of course the current situation, as Amrith alluded to, where the default
is option (1) except without the lock-down feature in Nova, though some
operators are deploying option (2) but it's not tested upstream...
clearly that's the worst of all possible worlds, and AIUI nobody
disagrees with that.

To my mind, (1) sounds more like "applications that run on OpenStack (or
other) infrastructure", since it doesn't require stuff like the
admin-only cross-project networking that makes it effectively "part of
the infrastructure itself" - as evidenced by the fact that unprivileged
users can run it standalone with little more than a simple auth
middleware change. But I suspect you are going to use similar logic to
argue for (2)? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.

cheers,
Zane.


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
responded Jun 20, 2017 by Zane_Bitter (21,640 points)   4 6 9
...