Category Archives: DevOps

Thanks! I’m enjoying my conversation with you

Posted on by
Reply

I write because I love to tell stories and to think about how actions we take today will impact tomorrow.  Ultimately, everything here is about a dialog with you because you are my sounding board and my critic.  I appreciate when people engage me about posts here and extend the conversation into other dimensions.  Feel free to call me on points and question my position – that’s what this is all about.

Thank you for being at part of my blog and joining in.  I’m looking forward to hearing more from you.

During the OpenStack Summit, I got to lead and participate in some excellent presentations and panels.  While my theme for this summit was interoperability, there are many other items discussed.

I hope you enjoy them.

Did one of these topics stand out?  Is there something I missed?  Please let me know!

OpenStack steps toward Interopability with Temptest, RAs & RefStack.org

Posted on by
2

Pipes are interoperableI’m a cautious supporter of OpenStack leading with implementation (over API specification); however, it clearly has risks. OpenStack has the benefit of many live sites operating at significant scale. The short term cost is that those sites were not fully interoperable (progress is being made!). Even if they were, we are lack the means to validate that they are.

The interoperability challenge was a major theme of the Havana Summit in Portland last week (panel I moderated) .  Solving it creates significant benefits for the OpenStack community.  These benefits have significant financial opportunities for the OpenStack ecosystem.

This is a journey that we are on together – it’s not a deliverable from a single company or a release that we will complete and move on.

There were several themes that Monty and I presented during Heat for Reference Architectures (slides).  It’s pretty obvious that interop is valuable (I discuss why you should care in this earlier post) and running a cloud means dealing with hardware, software and ops in equal measures.  We also identified lots of important items like Open Operations, Upstreaming, Reference Architecture/Implementation and Testing.

During the session, I think we did a good job stating how we can use Heat for an RA to make incremental steps.   and I had a session about upgrade (slides).

Even with all this progress, Testing for interoperability was one of the largest gaps.

The challenge is not if we should test, but how to create a set of tests that everyone will accept as adequate.  Approach that goal with standardization or specification objective is likely an impossible challenge.

Joshua McKenty & Monty Taylor found a starting point for interoperability FITS testing: “let’s use the Tempest tests we’ve got.”

We should question the assumption that faithful implementation test specifications (FITS) for interoperability are only useful with a matching specification and significant API coverage.  Any level of coverage provides useful information and, more importantly, visibility accelerates contributions to the test base.

I can speak from experience that this approach has merit.  The Crowbar team at Dell has been including OpenStack Tempest as part of our reference deployment since Essex and it runs as part of our automated test infrastructure against every build.  This process does not catch every issue, but passing Tempest is a very good indication that you’ve got the a workable OpenStack deployment.

Crowbar and our Pivot (or, how we slipped and shipped Grizzly)

Posted on by
4

Crowbar Grizzly PostMy team at Dell uses Lean process because it forces us to be honest about making hard choices. Our recent decision to pivot back to Crowbar 1.x for the OpenStack Grizzly release is a great example how the pivot process works.

4/24 note: I have a longer post and ISO for Grizzly on Crowbar waiting until we enter QA. The Crowbar community is already very active around this work and you’re encouraged to join.

Like any refactor, there was schedule risk when we started the Crowbar 2.x release. To mitigate this risk, we made two critical choices. First, we choose to advance the OpenStack barclamps on the 1.x code base in parallel with the 2.x work. Second, we chose a pivot date for the team to choose releasing Grizzly on the 1.x or 2.x trunks.

Choosing to jump back to 1.x was one of the hardest choices I’ve made in my career. I’m proud that we had the foresight to keep that as an option and prouder that our team rallied to make it happen.

I acknowledge that 1.x has gaps; however, getting Grizzly into the field for PoCs and pilots with 1.x provide substantial benefits to the community.  That said, there are barclamps for HA deployments and other production features that are under development on the 1.x branch and will be available in the community.

The 2.x code base provides important features but we are building from on the 1.x deployment recipes. This means that development, testing and tuning applied to the Grizzly barclamps will translates directly into Crowbar 2.x field readiness. In fact, more completeness on OpenStack can dramatically simplify Crowbar 2.x testing efforts.  This is especially true on the OpenStack Networking (fka Quantum) barclamps because they are new work.

Delivering solutions is a balance between features, timing and field experience.  The Crowbar team’s preference is to collaborate with operators in the field and that means making workable software available quickly.

I hope that you’ll agree with our approach and help us make Grizzly the most deployable OpenStack yet.

OpenStack’s next hurdle: Interoperability. Why should you care?

Posted on by
6
SXSW life size Newton's Cradle

SXSW life size Newton’s Cradle

The OpenStack Board spent several hours (yes, hours) discussing interoperability related topics at the last board meeting.  Fundamentally, the community benefits when uses can operate easily across multiple OpenStack deployments (their own and/or public clouds).

Cloud interoperability: the ability to transfer workloads between systems without changes to the deployment operations management infrastructure.

This is NOT hybrid (which I defined as a workload transparently operating in multiple systems); however it is a prereq to achieve scalable hybrid operation.

Interoperability matters because the OpenStack value proposition is all about creating a common platform.  IT World does a good job laying out the problem (note, I work for Dell).  To create sites that can interoperate, we have to some serious lifting:

At the OpenStack Summit, there are multiple chances to engage on this.   I’m moderating a panel about Interop and also sharing a session about the highly related topic of Reference Architectures with Monty Tayor.

The Interop Panel (topic description here) is Tuesday @ 5:20pm.  If you join, you’ll get to see me try to stump our awesome panelists

  • Jonathan LaCour, DreamHost
  • Troy Toman, Rackspace
  • Bernard Golden,  Enstratius
  • Monty Taylor, OpenStack Board (and HP)
  • Peter Pouliot, Microsoft

PS: Oh, and I’m also talking about DevOps Upgrades Patterns during the very first session (see a preview).

5 things keeping DevOps from playing well with others (Chef, Crowbar and Upstream Patterns)

Posted on by
6

Sharing can be hardSince my earliest days on the OpenStack project, I’ve wanted to break the cycle on black box operations with open ops. With the rise of community driven DevOps platforms like Opscode Chef and Puppetlabs, we’ve reached a point where it’s both practical and imperative to share operational practices in the form of code and tooling.

Being open and collaborating are not the same thing.

It’s a huge win that we can compare OpenStack cookbooks. The real victory comes when multiple deployments use the same trunk instead of forking.

This has been an objective I’ve helped drive for OpenStack (with Matt Ray) and it has been the Crowbar objective from the start and is the keystone of our Crowbar 2 work.

This has proven to be a formidable challenge for several reasons:

  1. diverging DevOps patterns that can be used between private, public, large, small, and other deployments -> solution: attribute injection pattern is promising
  2. tooling gaps prevent operators from leveraging shared deployments -> solution: this is part of Crowbar’s mission
  3. under investing in community supporting features because they are seen as taking away from getting into production -> solution: need leadership and others with join
  4. drift between target versions creates the need for forking even if the cookbooks are fundamentally the same -> solution: pull from source approaches help create distro independent baselines
  5. missing reference architectures interfere with having a stable baseline to deploy against -> solution: agree to a standard, machine consumable RA format like OpenStack Heat.

Unfortunately, these five challenges are tightly coupled and we have to progress on them simultaneously. The tooling and community requires patterns and RAs.

The good news is that we are making real progress.

Judd Maltin (@newgoliath), a Crowbar team member, has documented the emerging Attribute Injection practice that Crowbar has been leading. That practice has been refined in the open by ATT and Rackspace. It is forming the foundation of the OpenStack cookbooks.

Understanding, discussing and supporting that pattern is an important step toward accelerating open operations. Please engage with us as we make the investments for open operations and help us implement the pattern.

The Atlantic magazine explains why Lean process rocks (and saves companies $$)

Posted on by
1

GearsI’m certain that the Atlantic‘s Charles Fishman was not thinking software and DevOps when he wrote the excellent article about “The Insourcing Boom.”  However, I strongly recommend reading this report for anyone who is interested in a practical example of the inefficiencies of software lean process (If you are impatient, jump to page 2 and search for toaster).

It’s important to realize that this article is not about software! It’s an article about industrial manufacturing and the impact that lean process has when you are making stuff.  It’s about how US companies are using Lean to make domestic plants more profitable than Asian ones.  It turns out that how you make something really matters – you can’t really optimize the system if you treat major parts like a black box.

When I talk about Agile and Lean, I am talking about proven processes being applied broadly to companies that want to make profit selling stuff. That’s what this article is about

If you are making software then you are making stuff! Your install and deploy process is your assembly line. Your unreleased code is your inventory.

This article does a good job explaining the benefits of being close to your manufacturing (DevOps) and being flexible in deployment (Agile) and being connected to customers (Lean).  The software industry often acts like it’s inventing everything from scratch. When it comes to manufacturing processes, we can learn a lot from industry.

Unlike software, industry has real costs for scrap and lost inventory. Instead of thinking “old school” perhaps we should be thinking of it as the school of hard knocks.

My Dilemma with Folsom – why I want to jump to G

Posted on by
13

When your ship sailsThese views are my own.  Based on 1×1 discussions I’ve had in the OpenStack community, I am not alone.

If you’ve read my blog then you know I am a vocal and active supporter of OpenStack who is seeking re-election to the OpenStack Board.  I’m personally and professionally committed to the project’s success. And, I’m confident that OpenStack’s collaborative community approach is out innovating other clouds.

A vibrant project requires that we reflect honestly: we have an equal measure of challenges: shadow free fall Dev, API vs implementation, forking risk and others.  As someone helping users deploy OpenStack today, I find my self straddling between a solid release (Essex) and a innovative one (Grizzly). Frankly, I’m finding it very difficult to focus on Folsom.

Grizzly excites me and clearly I’m not alone.  Based on pace of development, I believe we saw a significant developer migration during feature freeze free fall.

In Grizzly, both Cinder and Quantum will have progressed to a point where they are ready for mainstream consumption. That means that OpenStack will have achieved the cloud API trifecta of compute-store-network.

  • Cinder will get beyond the “replace Nova Volume” feature set and expands the list of connectors.
  • Quantum will get to parity with Nova Network, addresses overlapping VM IPs and goes beyond L2 with L3 feature enablement like  load balancing aaS.
  • We are having a real dialog about upgrades while the code is still in progress
  • And new projects like Celio and Heat are poised to address real use problems in billing and application formation.

Everything I hear about Folsom deployment is positive with stable code and significant improvements; however, we’re too late to really influence operability at the code level because the Folsom release is done.  This is not a new dilemma.  As operators, we seem to be forever chasing the tail of the release.

The perpetual cycle of implementing deployment after release is futile, exhausting and demoralizing because we finish just in time for the spotlight to shift to the next release.

I don’t want to slow the pace of releases.  In Agile/Lean, we believe that if something is hard then we do should it more.  Instead, I am looking at Grizzly and seeing an opportunity to break the cycle.  I am looking at Folsom and thinking that most people will be OK with Essex for a little longer.

Maybe I’m a dreamer, but if we can close the deployment time gap then we accelerate adoption, innovation and happy hour.  If that means jilting Folsom at the release altar to elope with Grizzly then I can live with that.

OpenStack Summit: Let’s talk DevOps, Fog, Upgrades, Crowbar & Dell

Posted on by
6

If you are coming to the OpenStack summit in San Diego next week then please find me at the show! I want to hear from you about the Foundation, community, OpenStack deployments, Crowbar and anything else.  Oh, and I just ordered a handful of Crowbar stickers if you wanted some CB bling.

Matt Ray (Opscode), Jason Cannavale (Rackspace) and I were Ops track co-chairs. If you have suggestions, we want to hear. We managed to get great speakers and also some interesting sessions like DevOps panel and up streaming deploy working sessions. It’s only on Monday and Tuesday, so don’t snooze or you’ll miss it.

My team from Dell has a lot going on, so there are lots of chances to connect with us:

At the Dell booth, Randy Perryman will be sharing field experience about hardware choices. We’ve got a lot of OpenStack battle experience and we want to compare notes with you.

I’m on the board meeting on Monday so likely occupied until the Mirantis party.

See you in San Diego!

PS: My team is hiring for Dev, QA and Marketing. Let me know if you want details.

Crowbar 2.0 Design Summit Notes (+ open weekly meetings starting)

Posted on by
1

I could not be happier with the results Crowbar collaborators and my team at Dell achieved around the 1st Crowbar design summit. We had great discussions and even better participation.

The attendees represented major operating system vendors, configuration management companies, OpenStack hosting companies, OpenStack cloud software providers, OpenStack consultants, OpenStack private cloud users, and (of course) a major infrastructure provider. That’s a very complete cross-section of the cloud community.

I knew from the start that we had too little time and, thankfully, people were tolerant of my need to stop the discussions. In the end, we were able to cover all the planned topics. This was important because all these features are interlocked so discussions were iterative. I was impressed with the level of knowledge at the table and it drove deep discussion. Even so, there are still parts of Crowbar that are confusing (networking, late binding, orchestration, chef coupling) even to collaborators.

In typing up these notes, it becomes even more blindingly obvious that the core features for Crowbar 2 are highly interconnected. That’s no surprise technically; however, it will make the notes harder to follow because of knowledge bootstrapping. You need take time and grok the gestalt and surf the zeitgeist.

Collaboration Invitation: I wanted to remind readers that this summit was just the kick-off for a series of open weekly design (Tuesdays 10am CDT) and coordination (Thursdays 8am CDT) meetings. Everyone is welcome to join in those meetings – information is posted, recorded, folded, spindled and mutilated on the Crowbar 2 wiki page.

These notes are my reflection of the online etherpad notes that were made live during the meeting. I’ve grouped them by design topic.

Introduction

  • Contributors need to sign CLAs
  • We are refactoring Crowbar at this time because we have a collection of interconnected features that could not be decoupled
  • Some items (Database use, Rails3, documentation, process) are not for debate. They are core needs but require little design.
  • There are 5 key topics for the refactor: online mode, networking flexibility, OpenStack pull from source, heterogeneous/multi operating systems, being CDMB agnostic
  • Due to time limits, we have to stop discussions and continue them online.
  • We are hoping to align Crowbar 2 beta and OpenStack Folsom release.

Online / Connected Mode

  • Online mode is more than simply internet connectivity. It is the foundation of how Crowbar stages dependencies and components for deploy. It’s required for heterogeneous O/S, pull from source and it has dependencies on how we model networking so nodes can access resources.
  • We are thinking to use caching proxies to stage resources. This would allow isolated production environments and preserves the run everything from ISO without a connection (that is still a key requirement to us).
  • Suse’s Crowbar fork does not build an ISO, instead it relies on RPM packages for barclamps and their dependencies.
  • Pulling packages directly from the Internet has proven to be unreliable, this method cannot rely on that alone.

Install From Source

  • This feature is mainly focused on OpenStack, it could be applied more generally. The principals that we are looking at could be applied to any application were the source code is changing quickly (all of them?!). Hadoop is an obvious second candidate.
  • We spent some time reviewing the use-cases for this feature. While this appears to be very dev and pre-release focused, there are important applications for production. Specifically, we expect that scale customers will need to run ahead of or slightly adjacent to trunk due to patches or proprietary code. In both cases, it is important that users can deploy from their repository.
  • We discussed briefly our objective to pull configuration from upstream (not just OpenStack, but potentially any common cookbooks/modules). This topic is central to the CMDB agnostic discussion below.
  • The overall sentiment is that this could be a very powerful capability if we can manage to make it work. There is a substantial challenge in tracking dependencies – current RPMs and Debs do a good job of this and other configuration steps beyond just the bits. Replicating that functionality is the real obstacle.

CMDB agnostic (decoupling Chef)

  • This feature is confusing because we are not eliminating the need for a configuration management database (CMDB) tool like Chef, instead we are decoupling Crowbar from the a single CMDB to a pluggable model using an abstraction layer.
  • It was stressed that Crowbar does orchestration – we do not rely on convergence over multiple passes to get the configuration correct.
  • We had strong agreement that the modules should not be tightly coupled but did need a consistent way (API? Consistent namespace? Pixie dust?) to share data between each other. Our priority is to maintain loose coupling and follow integration by convention and best practices rather than rigid structures.
  • The abstraction layer needs to have both import and export functions
  • Crowbar will use attribute injection so that Cookbooks can leverage Crowbar but will not require Crowbar to operate. Crowbar’s database will provide the links between the nodes instead of having to wedge it into the CMDB.
  • In 1.x, the networking was the most coupled into Chef. This is a major part of the refactor and modeling for Crowbar’s database.
  • There are a lot of notes captured about this on the etherpad – I recommend reviewing them

Heterogeneous OS (bare metal provisioning and beyond)

  • This topic was the most divergent of all our topics because most of the participants were using some variant of their own bare metal provisioning project (check the etherpad for the list).
  • Since we can’t pack an unlimited set of stuff on the ISO, this feature requires online mode.
  • Most of these projects do nothing beyond OS provisioning; however, their simplicity is beneficial. Crowbar needs to consider users who just want a stream-lined OS provisioning experience.
  • We discussed Crowbar’s late binding capability, but did not resolve how to reconcile that with these other projects.
  • Critical use cases to consider:
    • an API for provisioning (not sure if it needs to be more than the current one)
    • pick which Operating Systems go on which nodes (potentially with a rules engine?)
    • inventory capabilities of available nodes (like ohai and factor) into a database
    • inventory available operating systems

Ops “Late Binding” is critical best practice and key to Crowbar differentiation

Posted on by
4

From OSCON 2012: Portland's light rail understands good dev practice.Late binding is a programming term that I’ve commandeered for Crowbar’s DevOps design objectives.

We believe that late binding is a best practice for CloudOps.

Understanding this concept is turning out to be an important but confusing differentiation for Crowbar. We’ve effectively inverted the typical deploy pattern of building up a cloud from bare metal; instead, Crowbar allows you to build a cloud from the top down.  The difference is critical – we delay hardware decisions until we have the information needed to do the correct configuration.

If Late Binding is still confusing, the concept is really very simple: “we hold off all work until you’ve decided how you want to setup your cloud.”

Late binding arose from our design objectives. We started the project with a few critical operational design objectives:

  1. Treat the nodes and application layers as an interconnected system
  2. Realize that application choices should drive down the entire application stack including BIOS, RAID and networking
  3. Expect the entire system to be in a constantly changing so we must track state and avoid locked configurations.

We’d seen these objectives as core tenets in hyperscale operators who considered bare metal and network configuration to be an integral part of their application deployment. We know it is possible to build the system in layers that only (re)deploy once the application configuration is defined.

We have all this great interconnected automation! Why waste it by having to pre-stage the hardware or networking?

In cloud, late binding is known as “elastic computing” because you wait until you need resources to deploy. But running apps on cloud virtual machines is simple when compared to operating a physical infrastructure. In physical operations, RAID, BIOS and networking matter a lot because there are important and substantial variations between nodes. These differences are what drive late binding as a one of Crowbar’s core design principles.

Late Binding Visualized