On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:38 AM, Gary Mazz
<garymazzaferro@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, thanks.. I'm looking at it and using it as a guide to the other specs.
I'll explain why I'm confused and it look like I'm pursuing more than the scope
In the occi system model, the IaaS fits between the PaaS and fabric. Looking at the occi UML it shows the compute resource as aggregated dependency of cluster<ag>>domain<ag>>cloud. The example defines "groups" as racks, pools, data center, etc., real physical assets. Based on the example, I think of clusters as organization of physical compute resources. If the intent was to keep domain and cloud logical elements, it may be better to get rid of the cluster as a class and convert it to a property defining a quality of service for the user. Some may disagree, but I don't believe the user cares if there is a cluster configured for round robin, random distribution, active all or primary/spare failover. I'm assuming they'll care about workload capacity and service availability. (and costs).
Currently cluster<ag>>domain<ag>>cloud looks more like a fabric than a logical components. Fabrics need a different set of capabilities, like events.
-gary
Alexis Richardson wrote:
Gary
Have you seen the interface comparison spreadsheet?
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pGccO5mv6yH8Y4wV1ZAJrbQ
This is our core focus for interop. To achieve commonality right here
right now. No invention just interop.
a
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro@gmail.com> wrote:
Well since this is a interoperability interface, I'm assuming there will be
gateways to other technologies like fabrics. Events, event delivery and
event management are important patterns and are supported by others. I
don't believe we'll be able to get away without supporting them for very
long. One of the big drawbacks to snmp and cimoms are the lack of event
support and an infrastructure to support event message persistence.
I'm also not sure where we are drawing the line in terms of
interoperability. There was a general consensus that occi should be focusing
on integration points in the cloud, but I didn't see a clear definition of
an integration point. (I was out of the loop for a while) In the occi model
the platform can be considered a container (loosely, a vm) with
infrastructure resources provisioned. The container life cycle and resource
provisioning are "management" integration points, although there are no
verbs published yet.
Will portions of occi interface be permitted to permeate the container
boundary ? It is still unclear the level of interaction, if any, between
the occi and the container contents. Maybe I missed the definition.
-gary
Alexis Richardson wrote:
Indeed and XMPP and HTTP should not be overlooked either.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Alexis Richardson
<alexis.richardson@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting point.
Speaking as someone who is professionally involved in messaging and
events my STRONG advice would be to completely leave them for now.
Implementation of the planned draft will naturally bring up use cases
suited to the various eventing technologies and protocols, none of
which are fully baked by the way. This will be good fodder for future
work but currently is **** not in scope ****.
Agreed, and I don't know AMQP well enough to say how it could fit here.
The use case we need to take away from it is that OCCI messages aren't
necessarily going to be ephemeral - they may well be long lived, queued,
serialised, saved to file, etc.
Sam
_______________________________________________
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg