91–100 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was at their keynote in one of the Openstack summit. I can guarantee that at least the VP that spoke about it knows nothing about openstack, and were just using Mirantis to deploy. They just threw Buzzwords around, one of which was Fuel[0] [0]: https://www.mirantis.com/software/openstack/fuel/
That's VPs for you, I wouldn't want our understanding of openstack to be judged by VPs either...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> if I can build an app that runs "unmodified" on any OpenStack-based infrastructure, that has a possibility to save me potential time and money from having to port apps to/from/between AWS, Azure, Google Cloud, et al (assuming of course that it enough clouds actually adopt). OpenStack is at the same layer as AWS, GCP or Azure. It's not an abstraction over them -- that's a PaaS. I'm not sure OpenStack was ever seriou…
It doesn't have to be an abstraction; it could have been an API standard for IaaS providers, with OpenStack itself serving as a reference implementation of said API. No higher-level concepts like containers; just saying things like "the VM lifecycle controllers in AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, DO, Linode, Rackspace, some random company's private cloud, etc., should all 'speak Nova', so that any Nova client can control VM…
Cloud Foundry gets around this by using BOSH for deployment; it essentially creates the kind of layer you're describing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I figure Intel's participation was hinged on supporting a growing fleet of competitors to AWS, who would bid up chip prices. I guess that isn't happening. IMO, OpenStack was sort of a consortium effort to compete with VMWare, AWS and Salesforce, but it's operational model is closest to AWS. Nearly all the big enterprise IT companies tied their rafts together hoping to stave the flow of customers. It doesn't appear to…
You missed Red Hat, who seem to be the only company having major success with OpenStack [1] Most of IBM, Intel, HPE etc have thrown in the towel and now offer their own services on top of Red Hat OpenStack. OpenStack has now found itself beyond enterprise, and now being the de-facto platform for NFV running mobile networks, and I guess Red Hat are becoming the winner here as they are so used to supporting an OpenStac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. You get it. It's frustrating to read people comparing container technologies or worse container schedulers with OpenStack. Apples and oranges. If you are planning on running containers on premise you need something from managing the IAAS side of things. OpenStack is excellent at IAAS and is the foundation for running higher level abstractions and services on top.
I said elsewhere in the thread. If there is a better IaaS solution than OpenStack, then I would love to know about it. I disagree with you that you need an IaaS solution to run containers on-prem, but realistically, yes you do need an IaaS solution
The article just mentions that Intel is no longer funding OSIC, which from what I read is essentially a data center for contributors to use (for free?). I could totally see why Intel would have second thoughts about footing a server bill; I don't think it means they're officially out of OpenStack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed Red Hat, who seem to be the only company having major success with OpenStack [1] Most of IBM, Intel, HPE etc have thrown in the towel and now offer their own services on top of Red Hat OpenStack. OpenStack has now found itself beyond enterprise, and now being the de-facto platform for NFV running mobile networks, and I guess Red Hat are becoming the winner here as they are so used to supporting an OpenStac…
Canonical also have a strongly growing OpenStack business with no signs of pulling out from it.
Canonical seriously lacks expertise in KVM (+QEMU+libvirt), and you cannot take that for granted when you have a customer with VMs crashing that is asking for a fix.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know about today, but a few years ago I tried to set it up and found it to be an uninstallable massive ball of twine and chewing gum. It was shockingly clunky. I can't imagine running something like that in production. I suppose it'd be good job security for a lot of sysadmins.
I just moved into an openstack development job, and I'm struggling. So many technologies and complexities you have to keep in mind, even within a single project. I'm hoping it comes together soon. I have not provided a ton of value yet just sitting here learning, and breaking so many things.
We have also undergone upgrade from Mitaka to Newton with zero-downtime and completed within a day (I understand that zero-downtime upgrade is a capability specific to Sardina FishOS). We will be upgrading to Ocata in the coming months.
We have found that in cloud, it is critical to separate the Operator role vs Consumer role. OpenStack is primarily Operator-facing, who are in turn providing the capabilities to serve certain Consumers. OpenStack enables the Operator to flexibly provide virtualized compute environment requested by the Consumer, while the Consumer does not care how the compute environment is provided by the Operator. With this view, lots of things become clear. Granted, not everyone in the OpenStack world have this view, but we are sure glad that we do from the early on!
Our deployment is not the largest, but we aren't small either (several hundred hypervisors). We are an organization of several 10's of thousand people, though the user base at the moment is still in the hundreds.
A number of comments here mentioned that they had live migration problems. We have not had these problems. It worked from the very beginning for us.
Our view was that we would work with a vendor on OpenStack, rather than trying to string together the parts, in the same way that we don't string together the parts that make up a Linux distribution. FishOS makes it simple for us -- and that's before looking at operational tools in the product.
I have not been involved in the commercial terms, but my understanding is that commercially we have TCO that would be hard to match otherwise.
At our facility, we have an OpenStack-based private cloud that we worked with Sardina Systems to put in place. It is production and we have not had any problems with it. We have also undergone upgrade from Mitaka to Newton with zero-downtime and completed within a day (I understand that zero-downtime upgrade is a capability specific to Sardina FishOS). We will be upgrading to Ocata in the coming months. We have found…
People try and deploy OpenStack from sources, or even from Ubuntu's etc packaging.
This isn't how you should do it.. You need an opnionated vendor who meets your needs.
the article mentions other big players pulling out or cutting jobs/funding related to OpenStack in recent months in addition to this latest move by Intel. Is this related to some endemic problem with the technology, big egos within the project, dominance by another outside player or what? Cursory searching doesn't reveal any "big thing". Maybe it's just dying a death by a thousand cuts.
Take a look at the sponsors for KubeCon and Dockercon and consider that many of these same companies were those originally trying to catch the OpenStack wave, and then ponder how many of them will be extracting themselves from those projects in 5 years (or at least lowering their investment, which as we see here is generally perceived as extraction).
Prominent folks in the Kubernetes community will tell you that it's different but the recent conferences sure have a similar vibe to OpenStack summits circa ~2013 when the marketing really started to overtake what the technology could deliver.