Author Archives: Rob H

Unknown's avatar

About Rob H

A Baltimore transplant to Austin, Rob thinks about ways of building scale infrastructure for the clouds using Agile processes. He sat on the OpenStack Foundation board for four years. He co-founded RackN enable software that creates hyperscale converged infrastructure.

Smaller Nodes? Just the Right Size for Docker!

Posted on by
1

Container workloads have the potential to redefine how we think about scale and hosted infrastructure.

Last Fall, Ubiquity Hosting and RackN announced a 200 node Docker Swarm cluster as a phase one of our collaboration. Unlike cloud-based container workloads demonstrations, we chose to run this cluster directly on the bare metal.  

Why bare metal instead of virtualized? We believe that metal offers additional performance, availability and control.  

With the cluster automation ready, we’re looking for customers to help us prove those assumptions. While we could simply build on many VMs, our analysis is the a lot of smaller nodes will distribute work more efficiently. Since there is no virtualization overhead, lower RAM systems can still give great performance.

The collaboration with RackN allows us to offer customers a rapid, repeatable cluster capability. Their Digital Rebar automation works on a broad spectrum of infrastructure allow our users to rehearse deployments on cloud, quickly change components and iteratively tune the cluster.

We’re finding that these dedicated metal nodes have much better performance than similar VMs in AWS?  Don’t believe us – you can use Digital Rebar to spin up both and compare.   Since Digital Rebar is an open source platform, you can explore and expand on it.

The Docker Swarm deployment is just a starting point for us. We want to hear your provisioning ideas and work to turn them into reality.

OpenStack Shared Community Values? Here’s my seven, let’s compare

Posted on by
Reply

The recent discussion about OpenStack API vs Implementation had led to several discussions about “OpenStack Values.”  While entertaining, they ultimately show that we have a lot of conflicting desires and opinions about the project.  In fact, the term “values” is itself hard to define.

Consequently, I wanted to try to capture what I see as OpenStack’s current values (not my personal ones for the project – those are in the post script). I’ve tried to put everything in positive terms, but value choices always have positive and negative impacts.

Rank Value Provides Possible Downsides
1 Upstreaming Share code base and community effort “First in” wins

Latest over stability

Measure value in commits
2 Vendor’s taking initiative Broad Participation

Free marketing buzz

 No one wants to say no because of Vendor bias perception
3 End-to-end open source No licenses required for scale users and developers Build, don’t buy wastes a lot of effort

Does not align with users who want to pay for services
4 Developer leadership Lots of code being created Not many user requirements being considered
5 Figuring out API via implementation Fast iterations Frustrating APIs

API depreciation
6 Passionate discussion Diversity of opinion

Drama attracts attention

 “Unfriendly” community

Loudest voice wins

Cross culture challenges
7 Being able to contribute broadly Generally maintainable platform Deep skills in subject matters

Best tool for the job

In my experience, if you don’t align with a communities values then you’re going to be very unhappy in the community.  I’ve watched this happen to project founders and the community changed around them.  Let’s all RAGE QUIT!

So, this makes me reflect on my own open source values. I’d start with pragmatic utility, transparent action, principle driven decisions, iterative design and data driven decisions.

What do you value most in open communities?

Deployment Fidelity – reducing tooling transistions for fun and profit

Posted on by
Reply

At the OpenStack Tokyo summit, I gave a short interview on Deployment Fidelity.  I’ve come to see the fidelity problem more broadly as the hybrid DevOps challenge that I described in my 2016 Predictions post as the end of mono-clouds.  Thanks Ken Hui from OpenStack Superuser TV for resurfacing this link!

APIs and Implementations collide at OpenStack Interop: The Oracle Zones vs VMs Debate

Posted on by
8

I strive to stay neutral as OpenStack DefCore co-chair; however, as someone asking for another Board term, it’s important to review my thinking so that you can make an informed voting decision.

DefCore, while always on the edge of controversy, recently became ground zero for the “what is OpenStack” debate [discussion write up]. My preferred small core “it’s an IaaS product” answer is only one side. Others favor “it’s an open cloud community” while another faction champions an “open cloud platform.” I’m struggling to find a way that it can be all together at the same time.

The TL;DR is that, today, OpenStack vendors are required to implement a system that can run Linux guests. This is an example of an implementation over API bias because there’s nothing in the API that drives that specific requirement.

From a pragmatic “get it done” perspective, OpenStack needs to remain implementation driven for now. That means that we care that “OpenStack” clouds run VMs.

While there are pragmatic reasons for this, I think that long term success will require OpenStack to become an API specification. So today’s “right answer” actually undermines the long term community value. This has been a long standing paradox in OpenStack.

Breaking the API to implementation link allows an ecosystem to grow with truly alternate implementations (not just plug-ins). This is a threat to the community “upstream first” mentality.  OpenStack needs to be confident enough in the quality and utility of the shared code base that it can allow competitive implementations. Open communities should not need walls to win but they do need clear API definition.

What is my posture for this specific issue?  It’s complicated.

First, I think that the user and ecosystem expectations are being largely ignored in these discussions. Many of the controversial items here are vendor initiatives, not user needs. Right now, I’ve heard clearly that those expectations are for OpenStack to be an IaaS the runs VMs. OpenStack really needs to focus on delivering a reliably operable VM based IaaS experience. Until that’s solid, the other efforts are vendor noise.

Second, I think that there are serious test gaps that jeopardize the standard. The fundamental premise of DefCore is that we can use the development tests for API and behavior validation. We chose this path instead of creating an independent test suite. We either need to address tests for interop within the current body of tests or discuss splitting the efforts. Both require more investment than we’ve been willing to make.

We have mechanisms in place to collects data from test results and expand the test base.  Instead of creating new rules or guidelines, I think we can work within the current framework.

The simple answer would be to block non-VM implementations; however, I trust that cloud consumers will make good decisions when given sufficient information.  I think we need to fix the tests and accept non-VM clouds if they pass the corrected tests.

For this and other reasons, I want OpenStack vendors to be specific about the configurations that they test and support. We took steps to address this in DefCore last year but pulled back from being specific about requirements.  In this particular case, I believe we should require the official OpenStack vendor to state clear details about their supported implementation.  Customers will continue vote with their wallet about which configuration details are important.

This is a complex issue and we need community input.  That means that we need to hear from you!  Here’s the TC Position and the DefCore Patch.

12 Predictions for ’16: mono-cloud ambitions die as containers drive more hybrid IT

Posted on by
3

I expect 2016 to be a confusing year for everyone in IT.  For 2015, I predicted that new uses for containers are going to upset cloud’s apple cart; however, the replacement paradigm is not clear yet.  Consequently, I’m doing a prognostication mix and match: five predictions and seven items on a “container technology watch list.”

TL;DR: In 2016, Hybrid IT arrives on Containers’ wings.

Considering my expectations below, I think it’s time to accept that all IT is heterogeneous and stop trying to box everything into a mono-cloud.  Accepting hybrid as current state unblocks many IT decisions that are waiting for things to settle down.

Here’s the memo: “Stop waiting.  It’s not going to converge.”

2016 Predictions

  1. Container Adoption Seen As Two Stages:  We will finally accept that Containers have strength for both infrastructure (first stage adoption) and application life-cycle (second stage adoption) transformation.  Stage one offers value so we will start talking about legacy migration into containers without shaming teams that are not also rewriting apps as immutable microservice unicorns.
  2. OpenStack continues to bump and grow.  Adoption is up and open alternatives are disappearing.  For dedicated/private IaaS, OpenStack will continue to gain in 2016 for basic VM management.  Both competitive and internal pressures continue to threaten the project but I believe they will not emerge in 2016.  Here’s my complete OpenStack 2016 post?
  3. Amazon, GCE and Azure make everything else questionable.  These services are so deep and rich that I’d question anyone who is not using them.  At least one of them simply have to be part of everyone’s IT strategy for financial, talent and technical reasons.
  4. Cloud API becomes irrelevant. Cloud API is so 2011!  There are now so many reasonable clients to abstract various Infrastructures that Cloud APIs are less relevant.  Capability, interoperability and consistency remain critical factors, but the APIs themselves are not interesting.
  5. Metal aaS gets interesting.  I’m a big believer in the power of operating metal via an API and the RackN team delivers it for private infrastructure using Digital Rebar.  Now there are several companies (Packet.net, Ubiquity Hosting and others) that offer hosted metal.

2016 Container Tech Watch List

I’m planning posts about all these key container ecosystems for 2016.  I think they are all significant contributors to the emerging application life-cycle paradigm.

  1. Service Containers (& VMs): There’s an emerging pattern of infrastructure managed containers that provide critical host services like networking, logging, and monitoring.  I believe this pattern will provide significant value and generate it’s own ecosystem.
  2. Networking & Storage Services: Gaps in networking and storage for containers need to get solved in a consistent way.  Expect a lot of thrash and innovation here.
  3. Container Orchestration Services: This is the current battleground for container mind share.  Kubernetes, Mesos and Docker Swarm get headlines but there are other interesting alternatives.
  4. Containers on Metal: Removing the virtualization layer reduces complexity, overhead and cost.  Container workloads are good choices to re-purpose older servers that have too little CPU or RAM to serve as VM hosts.  Who can say no to free infrastructure?!  While an obvious win to many, we’ll need to make progress on standardized scale and upgrade operations first.
  5. Immutable Infrastructure: Even as this term wins the “most confusing” concept in cloud award, it is an important one for container designers to understand.  The unfortunate naming paradox is that immutable infrastructure drives disciplines that allow fast turnover, better security and more dynamic management.
  6. Microservices: The latest generation of service oriented architecture (SOA) benefits from a new class of distribute service registration platforms (etcd and consul) that bring new life into SOA.
  7. Paywall Registries: The important of container registries is easy to overlook because they seem to be version 2.0 of package caches; however, container layering makes these services much more dynamic and central than many realize.  (more?  Bernard Golden and I already posted about this)

What two items did not make the 2016 cut?  1) Special purpose container-focused operating systems like CoreOS or RancherOS.  While interesting, I don’t think these deployment technologies have architectural level influence.  2) Container Security via VMs. I’m seeing patterns where containers may actually be more secure than VMs.  This is FUD created by people with a vested interest in virtualization.

Did I miss something? I’d love to know what you think I got right or wrong!

2015 Container Review

Posted on by
Reply

Rob H's avatarCloud2030 Podcast

It’s been a banner year for container awareness and adoption so we wanted to recap 2015.  For RackN, container acceleration is near to our hear because we both enable and use them in fundamental ways.   Look for Rob’s 2016 predictions on his blog.

The RackN team has truly deep and broad experience with containers in practical use.  In the summer, we delivered multiple container orchestration workloads including Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, Cloud Foundry, StackEngine and others.  In the fall, we refactored Digital Rebar to use Docker Compose with dramatic results.  And we’ve been using Docker since 2013 (yes, “way back”) for ops provisioning and development.

To make it easier to review that experience, we are consolidating a list of our container related posts for 2015.

General Container Commentary

View original post 68 more words

2015 Container Review

Posted on by
1

It’s been a banner year for container awareness and adoption so we wanted to recap 2015.  For RackN, container acceleration is near to our heart because we both enable and use them in fundamental ways.   Look for Rob’s 2016 predictions on his blog.

The RackN team has truly deep and broad experience with containers in practical use.  In the summer, we delivered multiple container orchestration workloads including Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, Cloud Foundry, StackEngine and others.  In the fall, we refactored Digital Rebar to use Docker Compose with dramatic results.  And we’ve been using Docker since 2013 (yes, “way back”) for ops provisioning and development.

To make it easier to review that experience, we are consolidating a list of our container related posts for 2015.

General Container Commentary

RackN & Digital Rebar Related

My OpenStack 2016 Analysis: Continue Core, Stop Confusing Ecosystem, Change Hybrid Approach

Posted on by
2

Note: I’ve served on the OpenStack Foundation board since its formation.  There I’ve led the “define the core” DefCore efforts.  I’m on the 2016 ballot for another term.

I love using end-of-year posts to reflect (2015, I got 6 of 7!) and try to set direction (OpenStack needed to prioritize).  This year, I wanted to use a simple “Continue, Stop, Change” format that I’ve used for employee reviews in the past.  These three items reflect how I think OpenStack needs to respond to the industry in 206.

Continue: Focus on Core

OpenStack adoption continues around the legacy projects that traditionally define it for most users.  A lot of work and focus is needed around those projects including better representation of user, operator and product interests.

Towards that end, we’ve made amazing progress on DefCore implementation and I’m excited about the discussions that it’s been generating.  It’s driving pragmatic decisions about what is required (running a vm?) and how to verify compliance.  It’s also driving conceptual thinking around OpenStack principles and ecosystem priorities.

DefCore’s focus on using community tests to define OpenStack creates a very concrete and defensible standard.  Ultimately, it comes back to users and operators demanding compliance for the work to remain meaningful.

Overall, To focus on core function, OpenStack needs to empower new groups within the community.  Expanding the role of the Product Group, Operators, and User Committee are key to giving a voice to these constituents.

OpenStack core must transition into a consistent platform or it risks becoming irrelevant.

Stop: Confusing The Ecosystem

I’m concerned about the “big tent” governance change puts OpenStack into conflict with both community vendors and the larger cloud market.  I believe we’re creating an echo chamber of OpenStack on OpenStack focus that forces adjacent efforts (like software defined network, storage and container orchestration) to be either inside or outside the community circle.  While that artificially grows the apparent contributor base, it creates artificial walls between OpenStack and the dominate cloud platforms.

Let me illustrate using my own company, RackN.  We create cross-platform devops orchestration based on an open source project, Digital Rebar.  We consider ourselves to be part of the OpenStack community and have supported deploying the core.  We also provision bare metal and deploy Kubernetes, Docker Swarm and Cloud Foundry.  That has apparent conflicts with big tent Ironic and Magnum projects.  Does that make RackN competitive with OpenStack or not?

It hurts OpenStack when competitive alignment is unclear because vendors, users and operators are uncertain about where to make investments.  In the end, users will choose simpler alternatives.

I believe the Board needs to define the OpenStack ecosystem strategy in a clear and actionable way.  If re-elected, that will be my Board priority for 2016.

Change: Hybrid Approach

My top 2016 prediction (post coming) is that we accept “hybrid IT as the new normal.”  That means that we stop driving towards an IT mono-culture and start working towards tools that embrace heterogeneity.  Along those lines, OpenStack needs to evaluate our relative position and strengths in a hybrid cloud landscape.

Interoperability between OpenStack implementations is important because it reduces friction; however, we need to expand our thinking to ensure interoperability with other platforms.  That does not mean simply cloning the AWS APIs!  It means that we need to consider users and operator needs against a spectrum of private and public infrastructures.

A broader hybrid approach also suggests that duplicating cloud-locked adjacent services (e.g. Cloud Formation vs. Heat) does not address user needs.

I am advocating that OpenStack encourage a cloud-neutral ecosystem, outside of the OpenStack tent, that work across a wide range of platforms.  That leads to user choice and creates a truly open platform. 

And, of course, more Community Discussion!

I want to thank the many people who participated in a heated twitter discussion in advance of this post.  There are many great ideas and counter-points covered in that lengthy dialog.

Do you have an opinion about what to OpenStack should stop, accelerate or change?  I’d love to hear it!

Generating Traffic Through Search

Posted on by
3

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nec in adipiscing purus luctus, urna pellentesque fringilla vel, non sed arcu integer, mauris ullamcorper ante ut non torquent. Justo praesent, vivamus eleifend torquent, suspendisse etiam lorem vestibulum, vestibulum in lorem nec vel, sit curabitur dui ligula vehicula quam. Nec in neque mauris, enim hac risus in lorem. Mi risus, feugiat egestas nunc vehicula vehicula libero. Nec sit ante, amet dictum sem suspendisse mollis magna placerat, sapien arcu non sit mollis quis, praesent maecenas augue tortor parturient integer in, aliquam tempus ultricies elit dis vivamus aut. Ipsum non ut egestas in, suspendisse ut. Sodales sed cras. Et consequat viverra. Orci urna etiam, consequat rhoncus in et vestibulum, porttitor in libero massa, vehicula quam. Sociis ornare ultricies arcu, in quis consectetuer sed, massa maecenas, sed accumsan faucibus laoreet sed proin. Sit vivamus amet orci ornare sit metus.[/vc_column_text][vc_empty_space height=”40px”][mkdf_blockquote text=”Consectetuer in at varius fames posuere sagittis. Enim eget est augue aspernatur venenatis vitae, purus netus libero cras lorem, praesent.”][vc_empty_space height=”25px”][vc_column_text]Risus amet purus odio id, mattis diam vestibulum dolor orci, porttitor aenean cursus phasellus sit in eu, mollis vel, mattis hac libero vestibulum. Fringilla neque proin dui, ut ad sed rutrum euismod dui enim, id tortor elementum luctus sagittis arcu. Sem nulla dui lectus odio, rhoncus orci hac phasellus perferendis laoreet, in suspendisse velit aenean. Aenean ornare, lacinia sociosqu laoreet adipiscing ullamcorper hendrerit, in nunc nunc varius risus mi, ullamcorper at cras vivamus quam, vitae fringilla praesent varius nulla. Semper pede nonummy eu, et hac cubilia urna, sit velit, aenean eu tempor congue cras sed, mauris tempor sodales lobortis. Ipsum maecenas neque ligula mi purus iaculis, id turpis nisl duis. Gravida nunc nam dui.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

¡Sí, Sí! That’s a Two Hundred Node Metal Docker Swarm Deployment

Posted on by
Reply

Today, RackN and Ubiquity Hosting announced a 200 node Docker Swarm deployment on hosted bare metal.

Leveraging the current Digital Rebar core and the RackN Swarm workload, this reference deployment was automatically configured using the same components that also work on a desktop VM deployment. That high fidelity deployment allows operators to start learning quickly on small systems then grow to AWS and if warranted, potentially smoothly transition to scale metal.

This deployment represents RackN starting a new chapter with Digital Rebar because it demonstrates a commitment deploy on any infrastructure: cloud, metal or something in between.

The RackN team started this journey with a “composable ops” vision that allows operators to mix and match. That spans both vendor physical resources and software components such as operating systems, software defined networking and platforms. In the 200 node Swarm cluster, physical infrastructure is provisioned by Ubiquity Hosting not Digital Rebar or RackN.  Historically, RackN focused on private infrastructure.  Now, users get the option of best-in-class metal deployment without having to own the infrastructure.

We experienced the futility of making Ops homogeneous and declared defeat.

Accepting that each data center has individual Ops was pivotal. Digital Rebar embraces heterogeneity at the most fundamental architectural level. Our system approach and unique composable abstractions allow users to make deployments portable between any infrastructure with existing tooling and operational processes. Portability means that we can both eliminate the fidelity gap as we scale and between deployments.

When multiple scales and sites can share deployment automation, we can finally work together on addressing critical operational issues like scale, high availability and upgrade

This 200 node deployment demonstrates more than scale and the deployment of the latest Docker technology. It is a milestone on the path toward sharable production operations.