Open Source as Reality TV and Burning Data Centers [gcOnDemand podcast notes]

During the OpenStack summit, Eric Wright (@discoposse) and I talked about a wide range of topics from scoring success of OpenStack early goals to burning down traditional data centers.

Why burn down your data center (and move to public cloud)? Because your ops process are too hard to change. Rob talks about how hybrid provides a path if we can made ops more composable.

Here are my notes from the audio podcast (source):

1:30 Why “zehicle” as a handle? Portmanteau from electrics cars… zero + vehicle

Let’s talk about OpenStack & Cloud…

  • OpenStack History
    • 2:15 Rob’s OpenStack history from Dell and Hyperscale
    • 3:20 Early thoughts of a Cloud API that could be reused
    • 3:40 The practical danger of Vendor lock-in
    • 4:30 How we implemented “no main corporate owner” by choice
  • About the Open in OpenStack
    • 5:20 Rob decomposes what “open” means because there are multiple meanings
    • 6:10 Price of having all open tools for “always open” choice and process
    • 7:10 Observation that OpenStack values having open over delivering product
    • 8:15 Community is great but a trade off. We prioritize it over implementation.
  • Q: 9:10 What if we started later? Would Docker make an impact?
    • Part of challenge for OpenStack was teaching vendors & corporate consumers “how to open source”
  • Q: 10:40 Did we accomplish what we wanted from the first summit?
    • Mixed results – some things we exceeded (like growing community) while some are behind (product adoption & interoperability).
  • 13:30 Interop, Refstack and Defcore Challenges. Rob is disappointed on interop based on implementations.
  • Q: 15:00 Who completes with OpenStack?
    • There are real alternatives. APIs do not matter as much as we thought.
    • 15:50 OpenStack vendor support is powerful
  • Q: 16:20 What makes OpenStack successful?
    • Big tent confuses the ecosystem & push the goal posts out
    • “Big community” is not a good definition of success for the project.
  • 18:10 Reality TV of open source – people like watching train wrecks
  • 18:45 Hybrid is the reality for IT users
  • 20:10 We have a need to define core and focus on composability. Rob has been focused on the link between hybrid and composability.
  • 22:10 Rob’s preference is that OpenStack would be smaller. Big tent is really ecosystem projects and we want that ecosystem to be multi-cloud.

Now, about RackN, bare metal, Crowbar and Digital Rebar….

  • 23:30 (re)Intro
  • 24:30 VC market is not metal friendly even though everything runs on metal!
  • 25:00 Lack of consistency translates into lack of shared ops
  • 25:30 Crowbar was an MVP – the key is to understand what we learned from it
  • 26:00 Digital Rebar started with composability and focus on operations
  • 27:00 What is hybrid now? Not just private to public.
  • 30:00 How do we make infrastructure not matter? Multi-dimensional hybrid.
  • 31:00 Digital Rebar is orchestration for composable infrastructure.
  • Q: 31:40 Do people get it?
    • Yes. Automation is moving to hybrid devops – “ops is ops” and it should not matter if it’s cloud or metal.
  • 32:15 “I don’t want to burn down my data center” – can you bring cloud ops to my private data center?

Problems with the “Give me a Wookiee” hybrid API

Greg Althaus, RackN CTO, creates amazing hybrid DevOps orchestration that spans metal and cloud implementations.  When it comes to knowing the nooks and crannies of data centers, his ops scar tissue has scar tissue.  So, I knew you’d all enjoy this funny story he wrote after previewing my OpenStack API report.  

“APIs are only valuable if the parameters mean the same thing and you get back what you expect.” Greg Althaus

The following is a guest post by Greg:

While building the Digital Rebar OpenStack node provider, Rob Hirschfeld tried to integrate with 7+ OpenStack clouds.  While the APIs matched across instances, there are all sorts of challenges with what comes out of the API calls.  

The discovery made me realize that APIs are not the end of interoperability.  They are the beginning.  

I found I could best describe it with a story.

I found an API on a service and that API creates a Wookiee!

I can tell the API that I want a tall or short Wookiee or young or old Wookiee.  I test against the Kashyyyk service.  I consistently get a 8ft Brown 300 year old Wookiee when I ask for a Tall Old Wookiee.  

I get a 6ft Brown 50 Year old Wookiee when I ask for a Short Young Wookiee.  Exactly what I want, all the time.  

My pointy-haired emperor boss says I need to now use the Forest Moon of Endor (FME) Service.  He was told it is the exact same thing but cheaper.  Okay, let’s do this.  It consistently gives me 5 year old 4 ft tall Brown Ewok (called a Wookiee) when I ask for the Tall Young Wookiee.  

This is a fail.  I mean, yes, they are both furry and brown, but the Ewok can’t reach the top of my bookshelf.  

The next service has to work, right?  About the same price as FME, the Tatooine Service claims to be really good too.  It passes tests.  It hands out things called Wookiees.  The only problem is that, while size is an API field, the service requires the use of petite and big instead of short and tall.  This is just annoying.  This time my tall (well big) young Wookiee is 8 ft tall and 50 years old, but it is green and bald (scales are like that).  

I don’t really know what it is.  I’m sure it isn’t a Wookiee.  

And while she is awesome (better than the male Wookiees), she almost froze to death in the arctic tundra that is Boston.  

My point: APIs are only valuable if the parameters mean the same thing and you get back what you expect.

 

Composability & Commerce: drivers for #CloudMinds Hybrid discussion

Last night, I had the privilege of being included in an IBM think tank group called CloudMinds.  The topic for the night was accelerating hybrid cloud.cb81gdhukaetyga

During discussion, I felt that key how and why aspects of hybrid computing emerged: composability and commerce.

Composability, the discipline of creating segmenting IT into isolated parts, was considered a primary need.  Without composability, we create vertically integrated solutions that are difficult to hybrid.

Commerce, the acknowledgement that we are building technology to solve problems, was considered a way to combat the dogma that seems to creep into the platform wars.  That seems obvious, yet I believe it’s often overlooked and the group seemed to agree.

It’s also worth adding that the group strongly felt that hybrid was not a cloud discussion – it was a technology discussion.  It is a description of how to maintain an innovative and disruptive industry by embracing change.

The purpose of the think tank is to create seeds of an ongoing discussion.  We’d love to get your perspective on this too.

We need DevOps without Borders! Is that “Hybrid DevOps?”

The RackN team has been working on making DevOps more portable for over five years.  Portable between vendors, sites, tools and operating systems means that our automation needs be to hybrid in multiple dimensions by design.

Why drive for hybrid?  It’s about giving users control.

launch!I believe that application should drive the infrastructure, not the reverse.  I’ve heard may times that the “infrastructure should be invisible to the user.”  Unfortunately, lack of abstraction and composibility make it difficult to code across platforms.  I like the term “fidelity gap” to describe the cost of these differences.

What keeps DevOps from going hybrid?  Shortcuts related to platform entangled configuration management.

Everyone wants to get stuff done quickly; however, we make the same hard-coded ops choices over and over again.  Big bang configuration automation that embeds sequence assumptions into the script is not just technical debt, it’s fragile and difficult to upgrade or maintain.  The problem is not configuration management (that’s a critical component!), it’s the lack of system level tooling that forces us to overload the configuration tools.

What is system level tooling?  It’s integrating automation that expands beyond configuration into managing sequence (aka orchestration), service orientation, script modularity (aka composibility) and multi-platform abstraction (aka hybrid).

My ops automation experience says that these four factors must be solved together because they are interconnected.

What would a platform that embraced all these ideas look like?  Here is what we’ve been working towards with Digital Rebar at RackN:

Mono-Infrastructure IT “Hybrid DevOps”
Locked into a single platform Portable between sites and infrastructures with layered ops abstractions.
Limited interop between tools Adaptive to mix and match best-for-job tools.  Use the right scripting for the job at hand and never force migrate working automation.
Ad hoc security based on site specifics Secure using repeatable automated processes.  We fail at security when things get too complex change and adapt.
Difficult to reuse ops tools Composable Modules enable Ops Pipelines.  We have to be able to interchange parts of our deployments for collaboration and upgrades.
Fragile Configuration Management Service Oriented simplifies API integration.  The number of APIs and services is increasing.  Configuration management is not sufficient.
 Big bang: configure then deploy scripting Orchestrated action is critical because sequence matters.  Building a cluster requires sequential (often iterative) operations between nodes in the system.  We cannot build robust deployments without ongoing control over order of operations.

Should we call this “Hybrid Devops?”  That sounds so buzz-wordy!

I’ve come to believe that Hybrid DevOps is the right name.  More technical descriptions like “composable ops” or “service oriented devops” or “cross-platform orchestration” just don’t capture the real value.  All these names fail to capture the portability and multi-system flavor that drives the need for user control of hybrid in multiple dimensions.

Simply put, we need devops without borders!

What do you think?  Do you have a better term?

Post-OpenStack DefCore, I’m Chasing “open infrastructure” via cross-platform Interop

Like my previous DefCore interop windmill tilting, this is not something that can be done alone. Open infrastructure is a collaborative effort and I’m looking for your help and support. I believe solving this problem benefits us as an industry and individually as IT professionals.

2013-09-13_18-56-39_197So, what is open infrastructure?   It’s not about running on open source software. It’s about creating platform choice and control. In my experience, that’s what defines open for users (and developers are not users).

I’ve spent several years helping lead OpenStack interoperability (aka DefCore) efforts to ensure that OpenStack cloud APIs are consistent between vendors. I strongly believe that effort is essential to build an ecosystem around the project; however, in talking to enterprise users, I’ve learned that that their  real  interoperability gap is between that many platforms, AWS, Google, VMware, OpenStack and Metal, that they use everyday.

Instead of focusing inward to one platform, I believe the bigger enterprise need is to address automation across platforms. It is something I’m starting to call hybrid DevOps because it allows users to mix platforms, service APIs and tools.

Open infrastructure in that context is being able to work across platforms without being tied into one platform choice even when that platform is based on open source software. API duplication is not sufficient: the operational characteristics of each platform are different enough that we need a different abstraction approach.

We have to be able to compose automation in a way that tolerates substitution based on infrastructure characteristics. This is required for metal because of variation between hardware vendors and data center networking and services. It is equally essential for cloud because of variation between IaaS capabilities and service delivery models. Basically, those  minor  differences between clouds create significant challenges in interoperability at the operational level.

Rationalizing APIs does little to address these more structural differences.

The problem is compounded because the differences are not nicely segmented behind abstraction layers. If you work to build and sustain a fully integrated application, you must account for site specific needs throughout your application stack including networking, storage, access and security. I’ve described this as all deployments have 80% of the work common but the remaining 20% is mixed in with the 80% instead of being nicely layers. So, ops is cookie dough not vinaigrette.

Getting past this problem for initial provisioning on a single platform is a false victory. The real need is portable and upgrade-ready automation that can be reused and shared. Critically, we also need to build upon the existing foundations instead of requiring a blank slate. There is openness value in heterogeneous infrastructure so we need to embrace variation and design accordingly.

This is the vision the RackN team has been working towards with open source Digital Rebar project. We now able to showcase workload deployments (Docker, Kubernetes, Ceph, etc) on multiple cloud platforms that also translate to full bare metal deployments. Unlike previous generations of this tooling (some will remember Crowbar), we’ve been careful to avoid injecting external dependencies into the DevOps scripts.

While we’re able to demonstrate a high degree of portability (or fidelity) across multiple platforms, this is just the beginning. We are looking for users and collaborators who want to want to build open infrastructure from an operational perspective.

You are invited to join us in making open cross-platform operations a reality.

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

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!

SXSW Volt hard to give up – this is the EV that my family wants me to buy

my volt and I

Today Chevy took my SXSW loaner Volt back to the dealership in the cloud.  While I was already inclined toward the Volt, I was much more impressed that I expected.  Frankly, the fact that the Volt and my home-conversion RAVolt both have a 30 mile range made the Volt seem like a pretend EV on the surface.  Yet, the Volt proved it was a full EV and more.

The Volt is a very solid electric car with the all torque and feel I was expecting.

Since the Volt was delivered without a charge, my first day in the car relied on the gas hybrid feature.  Even on gas, I was getting >40 MPG.  While I would have preferred to get the Volt fully charged, it was an important lesson for me to see it perform as a gas fueled car first.

Once I got it charged, I was able to drive nearly all my trips electric only.  That included my 30+ mile commute.  The magic of the Volt is that I never worried about running out of charge.  As an EV driver who has had close scrapes, that is a truly liberating experience.

I enjoyed playing with the Volt’s drive system.  I managed to find an accurate power input/output gauge on the dash instrumentation (the center console view is mainly a pretty animation for passengers).  I was able to extend my electric range using feedback from the more accurate gauge.  In addition, the built-in tutorial explained that I could use the PRNDL “low gear” in traffic.  Low gear activated behaviors in the Volt that made it more efficient AND EASIER to drive in traffic than conventional gas cars.  I was also intrigued by how efficiently the Volt used its gas generator – it used some smarts so the generator ran as little of possible.  Of course, I also enjoyed the acceleration of the electric motor🙂

In addition to the power train, I found the fit and finish of the Volt to be very satisfying.  The electronics were effective, interior comfortable and handling responsive.  While it did not pretend to be a luxury car, the Volt does not feel like a econobox either.

One note: if you are considering a Volt then plan on a 220 charger.  Relying on charging from household power is simply not practical.  Using 220, you can charge quickly at night when power is cheapest/cleanest to generate.