During the OpenStack Design Conference, Forrester’s James Staten (@Staten7) raved about OpenStack’s transparency compared to AWS. Within the enclave of OpenStack fan boys supports (Dell alone sent >14 people to the summit), his post drew a considerable attention but did little to really further the value proposition.
“Open deployments” are a much more significant value to implementors than transparency from open source code.
For any technology solution, there are significant challenges that will only be understood when the system is under stress. In some cases, these challenges are code defects; however, many will be related to configuration and deployment choices that are site specific. It is correcting these issues that result in design patterns and practices that create a robust infrastructure; consequently, the process of hardening a solution is critical to its ultimate stability and success.
When a solution, like AWS, is deployed and managed by a single entity, it is extremely rare for operational lessons learned and best practices to make it to the larger community. Amazon’s recent post mortem is a welcome exception. This is not a bad thing (Roman Stanek’s contrasting point), it is just the reality of a proprietary cloud. AWS operates as a black box and I don’t believe that Amazon’s operational experience would be relevant to others unless they were also operationally transparent.
While it makes business sense to remain operationally opaque, service providers lose the benefit of external lessons learned when there is no community working in parallel with them.
OpenStack’s community has an opportunity to iterate on CloudOps patterns and practices at a dramatically faster rate than any single provider. This creates distinct value for OpenStack adopters because they can shorten or eliminate their own challenges because other adopters will have the same pains and benefit from the same fixes.
It is critical to understand that the benefit is conferred to both the party sharing the problem (they get advice and support) and the party lending assistance (they avoid the problem). This is distinctly different from proprietary clouds where sharing is likely to cause embarrassment unlikely to create helpful outcomes.
I am not advocating that all OpenStack deployments be the same or follow a prescriptive patterns.
I believe that each installation will be unique in some way; however, there will be enough commonalities and shared code to make sharing worthwhile. This is especially true for adopters who start with tools like Crowbar that leverage community based Chef Recipes and automating scripts. Tools that encourage automation and shared scripts help accelerate the establishment of robust deployment patterns and practices.
Ultimately, the ability to collaborate on cloud operation practice does more to strengthen OpenStack than developers, code reviews or corporate endorsements.
Pingback: Crowbar modularized: latest changes that make clouds even easier to create, update, and maintain « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: OpenStack Austin: What we’d like to see at the Design Summit « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: Seven Cloud Success Criteria to consider before you pick a platform « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: Our Vision for Crowbar – taking steps towards closed loop operations « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: I am seeking your vote(s) for the OpenStack Board « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: I am seeking your vote(s) for the OpenStack Board « The JBGeorge Tech Blog
Pingback: OpenStack Board Voting Starts! Three thoughts about the board and election « Rob Hirschfeld's Blog
Pingback: 5 things keeping DevOps from playing well with others (Chef, Crowbar and Upstream Patterns) | Rob Hirschfeld's Blog