What does it take to Operate Open Platforms? Answers in Datanaughts 72

Did I just let OpenStack ops off the hook….?  Kubernetes production challenges…?  

ix34grhy_400x400I had a lot of fun in this Datanaughts wide ranging discussion with unicorn herders Chris Wahl and Ethan Banks.  I like the three section format because it gives us a chance to deep dive into distinct topics and includes some out-of-band analysis by the hosts; however, that means you need to keep listening through the commercial breaks to hear the full podcast.

Three parts?  Yes, Chris and Ethan like to save the best questions for last.

In Part 1, we went deep into the industry operational and business challenges uncovered by the OpenStack project. Particularly, Chris and I go into “platform underlay” issues which I laid out in my “please stop the turtles” post. This was part of the build-up to my SRE series.

In Part 2, we explore my operations-focused view of the latest developments in container schedulers with a focus on Kubernetes. Part of the operational discussion goes into architecture “conceits” (or compromises) that allow developers to get the most from cloud native design patterns. I also make a pitch for using proven tools to run the underlay.

In Part 3, we go deep into DevOps automation topics of configuration and orchestration. We talk about the design principles that help drive “day 2” automation and why getting in-place upgrades should be an industry priority.  Of course, we do cover some Digital Rebar design too.

Take a listen and let me know what you think!

On Twitter, we’ve already started a discussion about how much developers should care about infrastructure. My opinion (posted here) is that one DevOps idea where developers “own” infrastructure caused a partial rebellion towards containers.

Beyond Expectations: OpenStack via Kubernetes Helm (Fully Automated with Digital Rebar)

RackN revisits OpenStack deployments with an eye on ongoing operations.

I’ve been an outspoken skeptic of a Joint OpenStack Kubernetes Environment (my OpenStack BCN presoSuper User follow-up and BOS Proposal) because I felt that the technical hurdles of cloud native architecture would prove challenging.  Issues like stable service positioning and persistent data are requirements for OpenStack and hard problems in Kubernetes.

I was wrong: I underestimated how fast these issues could be addressed.

youtube-thumb-nail-openstackThe Kubernetes Helm work out of the AT&T Comm Dev lab takes on the integration with a “do it the K8s native way” approach that the RackN team finds very effective.  In fact, we’ve created a fully integrated Digital Rebar deployment that lays down Kubernetes using Kargo and then adds OpenStack via Helm.  The provisioning automation includes a Ceph cluster to provide stateful sets for data persistence.  

This joint approach dramatically reduces operational challenges associated with running OpenStack without taking over a general purpose Kubernetes infrastructure for a single task.

sre-seriesGiven the rise of SRE thinking, the RackN team believes that this approach changes the field for OpenStack deployments and will ultimately dominate the field (which is already  mainly containerized).  There is still work to be completed: some complex configuration is required to allow both Kubernetes CNI and Neutron to collaborate so that containers and VMs can cross-communicate.

We are looking for companies that want to join in this work and fast-track it into production.  If this is interesting, please contact us at sre@rackn.com.

Why should you sponsor? Current OpenStack operators facing “fork-lift upgrades” should want to find a path like this one that ensures future upgrades are baked into the plan.  This approach provide a fast track to a general purpose, enterprise grade, upgradable Kubernetes infrastructure.

Closing note from my past presentations: We’re making progress on the technical aspects of this integration; however, my concerns about market positioning remain.

“Why SRE?” Discussion with Eric @Discoposse Wright

sre-series My focus on SRE series continues… At RackN, we see a coming infrastructure explosion in both complexity and scale. Unless our industry radically rethinks operational processes, current backlogs will escalate and stability, security and sharing will suffer.

ericewrightI was a guest on Eric “@discoposse” Wright of the Green Circle Community #42 Podcast (my previous appearance).

LISTEN NOW: Podcast #42

In this action-packed 30 minute conversation, we discuss the industry forces putting pressure on operations teams.  These pressures require operators to be investing much more heavily on reusable automation.

That leads us towards why Kubernetes is interesting and what went wrong with OpenStack (I actually use the phrase “dumpster fire”).  We ultimately talk about how those lessons embedded in Digital Rebar architecture.

(re)OpenStack for 2017 – board voting week starts this Monday

[1/19 Update: I placed 9th in the results (or 6th if you go only by popular vote instead of total votes).  There are 8 seats, so I was not elected.]

The OpenStack Project needs a course correction and I’m asking for your community vote to put me back on the 2017 Board to help drive it.  As a start-up CEO, I’m neutral, yet I also have the right technical, commercial and community influence to make this a reality.

Vote Now!Your support is critical because OpenStack fills a very real need and should have a solid future; however, it needs to adapt to market realities to achieve that.

I want the Board to acknowledge and adapt to stumbles in ecosystem success including being dropped or re-prioritized by key sponsors.  This should include tightening the mission so the project can collaborate more freely with both open and proprietary platforms.  In 2016, I’ve been deeply involved OpenStack alternatives including Kubernetes and hybrid Cloud automation with Amazon and Google.

OpenStack must adjust to being one of several alternatives including AWS, Google and container platforms like Kubernetes.

That means focusing on our IaaS strengths and being unambiguous about core function like SDN and storage integration.   It also means ensuring that commercial members of the ecosystem can both profit and compete.  The Board has both the responsibility and authority to make these changes if the members are willing to act.

What’s my background?  I’ve been an active and vocal member of the OpenStack community since the very beginning of the project especially around Operator and Product Management issues.  I was elected to the board four times and played critical roles including launching the DefCore efforts and pushing for more definition of the Big Tent concept (which I believe has hurt the project).

In a great field of candidates!  Like other years, there are many very strong candidates whom I have worked with in a number of roles.  I always recommend distributing your eight votes to multiple people and limited “affinity voting” for your own company or geography.   While all candidates would serve the board, this year, I’d like to call attention specifically to  Shamail Tahair as a candidate who has invested significant time in helping with Product Management and Enterprise Readiness for OpenStack.

Can we control Hype & Over-Vendoring?

Q: Is over-vendoring when you’ve had to much to drink?
A: Yes, too much Kool Aid.

There’s a lot of information here – skip to the bottom if you want to see my recommendation.

Last week on TheNewStack, I offered eight ways to keep Kubernetes on the right track (abridged list here) and felt that item #6 needed more explanation and some concrete solutions.

  1. DO: Focus on a Tight Core
  2. DO: Build a Diverse Community
  3. DO: Multi-cloud and Hybrid
  4. DO: Be Humble and Honest
  5. AVOID: “The One Ring” Universal Solution Hubris
  6. AVOID: Over-Vendoring (discussed here)
  7. AVOID: Coupling Installers, Brokers and Providers to the core
  8. AVOID: Fast Release Cycles without LTS Releases

kool-aid-manWhat is Over-Vendoring?  It’s when vendors’ drive their companies’ brands ahead of the health of the project.  Generally by driving an aggressive hype cycle where vendors are trying to jump on the hype bandwagon.

Hype can be very dangerous for projects (David Cassel’s TNS article) because it is easy to bypass the user needs and boring scale/stabilization processes to focus on vendor differentiation.  Unfortunately, common use-cases do not drive differentiation and are invisible when it comes to company marketing budgets.  That boring common core has the effect creating tragedy of the commons which undermines collaboration on shared code bases.

The solution is to aggressively keep the project core small so that vendors have specific and limited areas of coopetition.  

A small core means we do not compel collaboration in many areas of project.  This drives competition and diversity that can be confusing.  The temptation to endorse or nominate companion projects is risky due to the hype cycle.  Endorsements can create a bias that actually hurts innovation because early or loud vendors do not generally create the best long term approaches.  I’ve heard this described as “people doing the real work don’t necessarily have time to brag about it.”

Keeping a small core mantra drives a healthy plug-in model where vendors can differentiate.  It also ensures that projects can succeed with a bounded set of core contributors and support infrastructure.  That means that we should not measure success by commits, committers or lines of code because these will drop as projects successfully modularize.  My recommendation for a key success metric is to the ratio of committers to ecosystem members and users.

Tracking improving ratio of core to ecosystem shows that improving efficiency of investment.  That’s a better sign of health than project growth.

It’s important to note that there is also a serious risk of under-vendoring too!  

We must recognize and support vendors in open source communities because they sustain the project via direct contributions and bringing users.  For a healthy ecosystem, we need to ensure that vendors can fairly profit.  That means they must be able to use their brand in combination with the project’s brand.  Apache Project is the anti-pattern because they have very strict “no vendor” trademark marketing guidelines that can strand projects without good corporate support.

I’ve come to believe that it’s important to allow vendors to market open source projects brands; however, they also need to have some limits on how they position the project.

How should this co-branding work?  My thinking is that vendor claims about a project should be managed in a consistent and common way.  Since we’re keeping the project core small, that should help limit the scope of the claims.  Vendors that want to make ecosystem claims should be given clear spaces for marketing their own brand in participation with the project brand.

I don’t pretend that this is easy!  Vendor marketing is planned quarters ahead of when open source projects are ready for them: that’s part of what feeds the hype cycle. That means that projects will be saying no to some free marketing from their ecosystem.  Ideally, we’re saying yes to the right parts at the same time.

Ultimately, hype control means saying no to free marketing.  For an open source project, that’s a hard but essential decision.


Will OpenStack Go Supernova? It’s Time to Refocus on Core.

There’s no gentle way to put this but everyone (and I mean everyone) I’ve talked with thinks that this position should be heard.

OpenStack is bleeding off development resources (Networkworld) and that may be a good thing if the community responds by refocusing.


#AfterStack Crowd

I spent a fantastic week in Barcelona catching-up with many old and new friends at the OpenStack summit. The community continues to grow and welcome new participants. As one of the “project elders,” I was on the hallway track checking-in on both public and private plans around the project.

One trend was common: companies are scaling back or redirecting resources away from the project.  While there are many reasons for this; the negative impact to development and test velocity is very clear.

When a sun goes nova, it blows off excess mass and is left with a dense energetic core. That would be better than going supernova in which the star burns intensely and then dies.

For OpenStack, a similar process would involve clearly redirecting technical efforts to the integrated Core from an increasingly frothy list of “big tent” extensions. This would both help focus resources and improve ecosystem collaboration.  I believe OpenStack is facing a choice between going nova (core focus) and supernova (burning out).

I am highly in favor of a strong and diverse ecosystem around OpenStack as demonstrated by my personal investments in OpenStack Interoperability (aka DefCore). However, when I moved out of the OpenStack echo chamber; I heard clearly that users have a much broader desire for interoperability. They need tools that are both hybrid and multi-cloud because their businesses are not limited to single infrastructures.

The community needs to embrace multi-cloud tools because that is the reality for its users.

Building an OpenStack specific ecosystem (as per “big tent”) undermines an essential need for OpenStack users. Now is the time for OpenStack for course correct to a narrower mission that focuses on the integrated functional platform that is already widely adopted. Now is the time for OpenStack live up to its original name and go “Nova.”

Why we can’t move past installers to talk about operations – the underlay gap

20 minutes.  That’s the amount of time most developers are willing to spend installing a tool or platform that could become the foundation for their software.  I’ve watched our industry obsess on the “out of box” experience which usually translates into a single CLI command to get started (and then fails to scale up).

Secure, scalable and robust production operations is complex.  In fact, most of these platforms are specifically designed to hide that fact from developers.  

That means that these platforms intentionally hide the very complexity that they themselves need to run effectively.  Adding that complexity, at best, undermines the utility of the platform and, at worst, causes distractions that keep us forever looping on “day 1” installation issues.

I believe that systems designed to manage ops process and underlay are different than the platforms designed to manage developer life-cycle.  This is different than the fidelity gap which is about portability. Accepting that allows us to focus on delivering secure, scalable and robust infrastructure for both users.

In a pair of DevOps.com posts, I lay out my arguments about the harm being caused by trying to blend these concepts in much more detail:

  1. It’s Time to Slay the Universal Installer Unicorn
  2. How the Lure of an ‘Easy Button’ Installer Traps Projects