RFC: Integrating Aeolus with Heat

Petr Blaho pblaho at redhat.com
Mon Sep 3 12:03:08 UTC 2012


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:37:53 AM Matt Wagner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 27, 2012 at 02:47:42PM +0200, Jan Provaznik wrote:
> > On 08/21/2012 06:15 PM, Tomas Sedovic wrote:
> 
> [heavy snipping below]
> 
> > >As a side benefit, we would get the current and future features of Heat
> > >for free:
> > >
> > >* high availability
> > >* auto-scaling
> > >* load-balancing
> 
> I think these things would be really valuable additions to Aeolus. I
> confess that I haven't fully wrapped my head around how some of these
> things can best be adapted to a cross-cloud environments -- it seems
> like it would introduce a bunch of new complexity. But if it works
> reliably, I think it would be a fantastic feature to add!
> 
> > nit: you probably meant 'deployment' instead of 'deployable' in the
> > paragraph above.
> 
> It occurs to me that if we as developers (and I'm absolutely including
> myself here -- I'm a repeat offender) keep mixing these terms up, it
> might make sense to try to change them. The terms are similar and one
> morphs into another at a certain point, so it's very easy to mix them up
> even if you know the distinction inside and out. I can't imagine users
> find this any easier than we do. (This is really a digression from the
> real topic here, but I wanted to mention it.)
> 
> > - the deployment launch setup becomes more complicated, a request
> > will pass through 3 standalone services:
> > Conductor -> Heat -> Deltacloud -> Provider
> 
> I was noticing the other day that we don't do a good job of accurately
> catching and reporting errors from other components, or making it clear
> which component the problem is. So if you have, say, trouble building an
> image, you need to poke around a bit to figure out if it's a Conductor
> problem or a Factory problem, and then you need to figure out what the
> actual error is. Adding an extra component seems like it would make this
> even more complicated.
> 
> I'm all for adding Heat, mind you. I just think that if we do, we're
> going to have to commit to good error handling and reporting, without
> leaving people to read multiple logs to figure out where the problem
> began.

+1 on this. I think we should commit to this regardless integration of Heat.

> 
> -- Matt
-- 

With regards
Petr Blaho



More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list