The unexpected openness of OpenStack: why it’s important to learn from others’ operations experience.

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.

Rackspace will balance control of OpenStack. It takes time & strong partners

Rick Clark’s post “Why I Left Rackspace and What About Openstack” (+ his softer post script) is part of a longer conversation that started when Rackspace acquired Anso Labs and was expanded with the resignation of Chris Kemp (NASA CTO & OpenStack #1 fanboy).

Building a community is a delicate balance: you need show leadership while you cultivate leadership.

Putting aside the context (resigning from Rackspace to join Cisco) of his post, I think that Rick’s comments do resonate with parts of the community.  OpenStack goverance became unbalanced when Anso became Rackspace.  The governance board formed at the Austin conference was dominated by a small number (2: NASA/Anso & Rackspace) of highly committed voices but there was no single master.

Considering OpenStack’s momentum, we are in a very good position to fix the single master problem.  However, it takes time.  While companies like Dell (my employer), NTT, Citrix, Cisco (Rick’s employer), and Microsoft are clearly investing in OpenStack, none have yet achieved NASA or Rackspace’s level of technical committment.

The challenge for Rackspace is to expand the OpenStack market and ecosystem so that partners are motivated to jump in more and more quickly.  If my experiences inside Dell are indicative of the broader community, Rackspace’s leadership makes it much easier for partners to increase their own commitment.  Like teaching my daughter to ride her bike, she needed to know that I was running next to her before she would pedal hard enough to balance by herself.

Like teaching bike riding – you can’t lead communities too hard or too lightly.

To build a community around OpenStack, we (the partners) need to stand up our own capability.  Until we have demonstrated more leadership, Rackspace must cultivate both a community and a market.  This is a challenging role to balance.  While the community wants distributed ownership, the market wants leadership.  Rick’s governance comments are evidence of this struggle and Rick’s move to Cisco is an indication of leadership diversification.

I believe that Rackspace is committed to distributed ownership – we, in the community, need to rise to the challenge!

OpenStack still needs strong leadership from Rackspace because the market needs someone to be accountable for releases and features.  That allows new partners to depend on someone to run beside them while the wobble their way along to independence.  As the community leaders stand up, we’ll see a balanced community emerge.  The challenge is on us to make that happen (and happen quickly).