Are VMs becoming El Caminos? Containers & Metal provide new choices for DevOps

I released “VMS ARE DEAD” this post two weeks ago on DevOps.com.  My point here is that Ops Automation (aka DevOps) is FINALLY growing beyond Cloud APIs and VMs.  This creates a much richer ecosystem of deployment targets instead of having to shoehorn every workload into the same platform.

In 2010, it looked as if visualization had won. We expected all servers to virtualize workloads and the primary question was which cloud infrastructure manager would dominate. Now in 2015, the picture is not as clear. I’m seeing a trend that threatens the “virtualize all things” battle cry.

IMG_20150301_170558985Really, it’s two intersecting trends: metal is getting cheaper and easier while container orchestration is advancing on rockets. If metal can truck around the heavy stable workloads while containers zip around like sports cars, that leaves VMs as a strange hybrid in the middle.

What’s the middle? It’s the El Camino, that notorious discontinued half car, half pick-up truck.

The explosion of interest in containerized workloads (I know, they’ve been around for a long time but Docker made them sexy somehow) has been creating secondary wave of container orchestration. Five years ago, I called that Platform as a Service (PaaS) but this new generation looks more like a CI/CD pipeline plus DevOps platform than our original PaaS concepts. These emerging pipelines obfuscate the operational environment differently than virtualized infrastructure (let’s call it IaaS). The platforms do not care about servers or application tiers, their semantic is about connecting services together. It’s a different deployment paradigm that’s more about SOA than resource reservation.

On the other side, we’ve been working hard to make physical ops more automated using the same DevOps tool chains. To complicate matters, the physics of silicon has meant that we’ve gone from scale up to scale out. Modern applications are so massive that they are going to exceed any single system so economics drives us to lots and lots of small, inexpensive servers. If you factor in the operational complexity and cost of hypervisors/clouds, an small actual dedicated server is a cost-effective substitute for a comparable virtual machine.

I’ll repeat that: a small dedicated server is a cost-effective substitute for a comparable virtual machine.

I am not speaking against virtualize servers or clouds. They have a critical role in data center operations; however, I hear from operators who are rethinking the idea that all servers will be virtualized and moving towards a more heterogeneous view of their data center. Once where they have a fleet of trucks, sports cars and El Caminos.

Of course, I’d be disingenuous if I neglected to point out that trucks are used to transport cars too. At some point, everything is metal.

Want more metal friendly reading?  See Packet CEO Zac Smith’s thinking on this topic.

My OpenStack Super User Interview [cross-post]

This post of my interview for the OpenStack Super User site originally appeared there on 3/23 under the title “OpenStack at 10: different code, same collaboration?”

With over 15 years of cloud experience, Rob Hirschfeld also goes way back with OpenStack. His involvement dates to before it was officially founded and he was also one of the initial Board Members. In addition to his role as Individual Director, Hirschfeld currently chairs the DefCore committee. He’ll be speaking about DefCore at the upcoming Vancouver Summit with Alan Clark, Egle Sigler and Sean Roberts.

He talks to Superuser about the importance of patches, priorities for 2015 and why you should care about OpenStack vendors making money.

Superuser: You’ve been with the project since before it started, where do you hope it will be in five years?

In five years, I expect that nearly every line of code will have been replaced. The thing that will endure is the community governance and interaction models that we’re working out to ensure commercial collaboration.

[3/24 Added Clarification Note: I find humbled watching traditionally open-unfriendly corporations using OpenStack to learn how to become open source collaborations.  Our governance choices will have long lasting ramifications in the industry.] 

What is something that a lot of people don’t know about OpenStack?

It was essentially a “rewrite fork” of Eucalyptus created because they would not accept patches.  That’s a cautionary tale about why accepting patches is essential that should not get lost from the history books.

Any thoughts on your first steps to the priorities you laid out in your candidacy profile?

I’ve already started to get DefCore into an execution phase with additional Board and Foundation leadership joining into the effort.  We’ve set a very active schedule of meetings with two sub-committees running in parallel…It’s going to be a busy spring.

You say that the company you founded, RackN, is not creating an OpenStack product. How are you connected to the community?

RackN supports OpenCrowbar which provides a physical ready state infrastructure for scale platforms like OpenStack. We are very engaged in the community from below by helping make other distributions, vendors and operators successful.

What are the next steps to creating the “commercially successful ecosystem” you mentioned in your candidacy profile? What are the biggest obstacles to this?

We have to make stability and scale a critical feature. This will mean slowing features and new projects; however, I hear a lot of frustration that OpenStack is not focused on delivering a solid base.

Without a base, the vendors cannot build profitable products.  Without profits, they cannot keep funding the project. This may be radical for an open project, but I think everyone needs to care more if vendors are making money.

What are some more persistent myths about the cloud?

That the word cloud really means anything.  Everyone has their own definition.  Mine is “infrastructure with an API” but I’d happily tell you it’s also about process and ops.

Who are your real-life heroes?

FIRST (For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) founders Dean Kamen and Woodie Flowers. They executed a real vision about how to train for both competition and collaboration in the next generation of engineers.  Their efforts in building the next generation of leaders really impact how we will should open source collaboration. That’s real innovation.

What do you hope to get out of the next summit?

First, I want to see vendors passing DefCore requirements.  After that, I’d like to see the operators get more equal treatment and I’m hoping to spend more time working with them so they can create places to share knowledge.

What’s your favorite/most important OpenStack debate?

There are two.  First, I think the API vs. implementation is a critical growth curve for OpenStack.  We need to mature past being so implementation driven so we can have stand alone APIs.

Second, I think the “benevolent dictator” discussion is useful. Since we are never going to have one, we need a real discussion about how to define and defend project wide priorities in a meaningful way.  Resolving both items is essential to our long-term viability.

From the archives circa 2001: “logical service cloud” patent

 

 

Sometimes, it’s fun to go back and read old things

Abstract: A virtualized logical server cloud that enables logical servers to exist independent of physical servers that instantiate the logical servers. Servers are treated as logical resources in order to create a logical server cloud. The logical attributes of a logical server are non-deterministically allocated to physical resources creating a cloud of logical servers over the physical servers. Logical separation is facilitated by the addition of a server cloud manager, which is an automated multi-server management layer. Each logical server has persistent attributes that establish its identity. Each physical server includes or is coupled to physical resources including a network resource, a data storage resource and a processor resource. At least one physical server executes virtualization software that virtualizes physical resources for logical servers. The server cloud manager maintains status and instance information for the logical servers including persistent and non-persistent attributes that link each logical server with a physical server

Inventors: Rob Hirschfeld (me) and Dave McCrory.

OpenStack DefCore Process Draft Posted for Review [major milestone]

OpenStack DefCore Committee is looking for community feedback about the proposed DefCore Process.

Golden PathMarch has been a month for OpenStack DefCore milestones.  At the March Board meeting, we approved the first official DefCore Guideline (called DefCore 2015.03) and we are poised to commit the first DefCore Process draft.

Once this initial commit is approved by the DefCore Committee (expected at DefCore Scale.8 Meeting 3/25 @ 9 PT), we’ll be ready for broader input by the community using the standard OpenStack Gerrit review process.  If you are not comfortable with Gerrit, we’ll take your input anyway that you want to give it except via telepathy (we’ve already got a lot on our minds).

Note: We’re also looking for input on the 2015.next Guideline targeted for 2015.04,

The DefCore Process documents the rules (who, what, when and where) that will govern how we create the DefCore Guidelines.  By design, it has to be detailed and specific without adding complexity and confusion.  The why of DefCore is all that work we did on principles that shape the process.

This process reflects nearly a year of gestation starting from the June 2014 DefCore face-to-face.  Once of the notable recent refinements was to organize material into time phases and to be more specific about who is responsible for specific actions.

To make review easier, I’ve reposted the draft.  Comments are welcome here and on the patch (and here after it lands).

DRAFT: OpenStack DefCore Process 2015A (reposted from OpenStack/DefCore)

This document describes the DefCore process required by the OpenStack bylaws and approved by the OpenStack Technical Committee and Board.

Expected Time line:

Time Frame Milestone Activities Lead By
-3 months S-3 “preliminary” draft (from current) DefCore
-2 months S-2 ID new Capabilities Community
-1 month S-1 Score capabilities DefCore
Summit S “solid” draft Community
Advisory items selected DefCore
+1 month S+1 self-testing Vendors
+2 months S+2 Test Flagging DefCore
+3 months S+3 Approve Guidance Board

Note: DefCore may accelerate the process to correct errors and omissions.

Process Definition

Continue reading

What Is digital “work?” Can we sell a cloud of smoke? Yes and the impacts are very tangible.

IN THIS second in an 8 POST SERIES, BRAD SZOLLOSE AND ROB HIRSCHFELD INVITE YOU TO SHARE IN OUR DISCUSSION ABOUT FAILURES, FIGHTS AND FRIGHTENING TRANSFORMATIONS GOING ON AROUND US AS DIGITAL WORK CHANGES WORKPLACE DELIVERABLES, PLANNING AND CULTURE.

So, what is a Digital worker?  Before we talk about managing them, we need to agree to the very concept of digital work.

A Digital Worker is someone who creates value primarily by creating virtual goods and services.  This creates a challenge for traditional work because, in the physical world, no material goods were created.

ManagersBack in The Day, this type of work was equivalent to selling day dreams – it had no material value. It was intangible.

To today’s tech savvy workforce, even though their output exists simply as numbers in the “cloud,” digital work is tangible to digital natives.

Tangible work is directly consumable. If I create something I can see it, hold it in my hands. Eat it and enjoy it in the three dimensional meatverse we call “reality.” So, If I baked a pie and Brad ate it then I produced consumable work. That same rule applies for digital work like this blog post that Brad and I produced and you are reading. It’s nothing more than photons on a screen, but the value is immense and you can see the tangible results of our work.

The entire industrial age up until now was driven by a basic premise of effort equals results so eloquently stated by management consultant, Peter Drucker“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”

But much of what we do in the nascent stage of Digital Age, the beginning of the 21st Century, can NOT be measured using traditional value placements.

Case in point, what happens if we only worked when our spouses told us it was time to stop playing Candy Crush and get back to writing? We’re still producing digital work but now our spouses have taken on the role of managers. While they played an essential part in the content being created, their input is intangible and something that cannot be measured. Our spouse becomes the influencer in this model.

We need to revisit “If You Can’t Measure It You Can’t Manage.”  It is BS! no longer applies in digital work.

This distinction is important because we want to distinguish between digital workers and managers. They do very similar actions (type on keyboards, send email, go to meetings), but one creates digital goods while the other coordinates the creation of digital goods.

In the world of physical goods, the people coordinating HOW the work gets done have a significant amount of power. They provide the raw materials, tools, capital, supply chains and other requirements to get the goods to market. i.e…logistics. The actions of any single worker cannot scale in a meaningful way without management being involved; consequently, management has a tremendous amount of power (and corresponding respect) in the worker-manager relationship paradigm. This is not just for industrial work, the same applies to farming, singing, writing or other industries and defines most work in the pre-digital world of the Boomers, Traditionalists and earlier generations.

But let’s extend our simple example to a team of animators creating special effects for a movie. Pixar for example. The work requires each member of the team to already be up to speed on their specific role in the animation process. Whether a sculptor, character development, a digital set designer or character animator, each member knows what they need to do to be their very best, and how to reach their own deadlines. They are self managed and the very best at their jobs. And each is in charge of creating from the digital universe the same logistics mentioned above. Instead of management providing that support, the digital worker is their own support within the team.

The digital world inverts the traditional worker-manager dynamic.

With digital goods, the raw materials, tools, capital, supply chains and other requirements to get the goods to market. i.e…again, logistics are readily available so the worker’s creativity and effort become the critical resource.

A so called “manager” in this framework has one job: to provide the support and right environment to get the work done. Like a beekeeper, he must trust that each bee knows how to create honey. His or her job is to make their jobs friction free by making the environment the very best to get that work done. Trust is the key word.

bunny slippersThere is still need for management and coordination, but the power dynamic has been radically altered. While anyone could follow Rob’s pie recipe, you cannot simply replace his role as co-author on this blog post. Even more radical, there’s often no perceived need for managers at all!  Digital workers simply order pizza and produce digital goods in their bathrobe and bunny slippers.

While this vision is held as a core belief by many digital natives, we don’t believe it entirely.

But wait Rob and Brad, what about those YouTube millionaires who upload cat videos and cash in?  In those cases, there is a lot of invisible coordination in the distribution channel. The massive infrastructure needed to deliver Grumpy Cat is also digital work and Google invests vast sums of money to reduce the friction connecting those content creators and consumers. [Google and YouTube are the beekeeper.]

We believe the need for coordination of digital work is a critical and necessary component for real digital work to get done on time. Unfortunately, the inversion of power means that managers have neither the authority not resource controls that were in place when “modern management techniques” were created.

Our focus here is not on the lone wolf digital workers, but instead, we are focused on the collaborative digital worker. Those people who must collaborate with each other to deliver their goods. For those workers, there is a need for capital, supply chains and coordination. Their work is just a bit of the larger digital whole.

If “modern management” does not work for digital workers then what does?

Let’s keep in mind as we explore this discussion that these are High Trust environments and the subject for our next 6 posts.

Talking Functional Ops & Bare Metal DevOps with vBrownBag [video]

Last Wednesday (3/11/15), I had the privilege of talking with the vBrownBag crowd about Functional Ops and bare metal deployment.  In this hour, I talk about how functional operations (FuncOps) works as an extension of ready state.  FuncOps is a critical concept for providing abstractions to scale heterogeneous physical operations.

Timing for this was fantastic since we’d just worked out ESXi install capability for OpenCrowbar (it will exposed for work starting on Drill, the next Crowbar release cycle).

Here’s the brown bag:

If you’d like to see a demo, I’ve got hours of them posted:

Video Progression

Crowbar v2.1 demo: Visual Table of Contents [click for playlist]

Can Digital Workers Deliver? No. [cloud culture vs. traditional management]

In this 8 post series, Brad Szollose and Rob hirschfeld invite you to share in our discussion about failures, fights and frightening transformations going on around us as digital work changes workplace deliverables, planning and culture.

On the shouldersDigital workers will not deliver. Not if you force them into the 20th century management model then they (and you) will fail miserably; however, we believe they can outperform previous generations if guided correctly. In the 21st Century, digital technologies have fundamentally transformed both the way we work and, more importantly, how we have learned to work.

So far, we’ve framed this transformation as a generational (Boomers vs Millennials) challenge; however, workers today transcend those boundaries. We believe that we need to redefine the debate from cultural viewpoints of Boomers (authority driven leadership) and Millennials (action driven leadership). In the global, digital workforce, these perspectives transcend age.

We looked to performing music as a functional analogy for leadership.

In music, we saw very different leadership cultures at work in symphonic and jazz performances. The symphony orchestra mirrors the Boomer culture expectation of clear leadership hierarchy and top-down directed effort. The jazz band typifies the Millennial cultural norms of fluid leadership based on technical competence where the direction is a general theme and the players evolve the details. Both require technical acumen and have very clear rules for interaction with the art form. More importantly, these two extremes both produce wonderful music, but they are miles apart in execution.

Today’s workforce generations often appear the same way – unable to execute together. We believe strongly that, like symphonies and jazz concerts, both approaches have strengths and weaknesses. The challenge is to understand adapt your leadership cultural language of your performers.

That is what Brad and Rob have been discussing together for years and, now, we’d like to include you in our conversation about how Cloud Culture is transforming our work force.