Simon Wardley is never shy to share a provocative opinion. :)
A summary of his latest missive: OpenStack is already doomed because of their inability, or unwillingness, to produce AWS clones. There’s nothing new in Simon’s position there, but it’s his bluntest statement of opinion yet on OpenStack’s prospects.
I’m not going to presume to agree or disagree with Simon’s prediction — but in his blog post and the ensuing conversation, I saw a few opportunities to clarify how I think about Eucalyptus and AWS fidelity.
* * * * *
First, on proving AWS fidelity.
Obviously, at Eucalyptus we think deeply about the AWS fidelity problem, and how to approach it. Simon suggests one possible model:
So could CloudStack, Eucalyptus, Open Nebula and some of the OpenStack party create a rich set of AWS compatible environments — of course. But the problem becomes you have to define one thing as the ‘reference’ model. The only way around this that I know is for the groups to create a massive set of test scripts and provide some sort of AWS compatibility service and define that as the reference model and each show compatibility to it and it to AWS. It’s possible, I’ve hinted enough times that people could try that route but there’s no takers so far.
I can’t speak for the other projects, but we find that the best tests of AWS compatibility can be found in the AWS ecosystem itself — which is one of the key advantages of working in such an ecosystem. Chasing a full API is an exhausting process, and can be discouraging, but we’ve had good success by first ensuring compatibility with the most popular open source tools in the AWS world. By moving progressively through these tools, we will cover ever-expanding sections of the API, leaving the dustiest corners of the API for last (perhaps never even to be implemented; after all, an API is ultimately only as useful as the tools that exercise it.)
The Netflix OSS toolchain is a great example of this. The team at Netflix has taken quite a bit of heat for relying so heavily on the AWS family of services, but their decision to open source all of their tools has been a boon to us. They are smart users who exercise AWS at a scale that other users can scarcely imagine, so it’s a safe bet that they’re exercising many of the most interesting parts of the AWS API. We’ve learned much, and proved much, by following their trail.
Of course, we also have our own automated test suite for AWS/Eucalyptus fidelity; we call it Eutester. It’s designed, at least in part, to run identical test cases against both Eucalyptus and AWS, and anyone who wants to test the AWS fidelity of their own IaaS can pick up that code and run with it. That codebase will continue to grow as Eucalyptus grows. Patches welcome, as they say.
* * * * *
Second, on architecting for AWS fidelity.
It seems to be assumed — among some, anyway — that AWS API compatibility is something that can simply be dropped into OpenStack at any time. The trouble is, no one will know how true that is, or isn’t, until they actually do the work. Geoff Arnold’s comments hit the nail on the head:
Load balancing is a great example. For good or ill, Amazon’s Elastic Load Balancer is a cornerstone of web-tier cloud applications architecture. If the OpenStack community was serious about AWS compatibility, the LBaaS team would have established ELB compatibility as a fundamental requirement. It didn’t. On the contrary, much of the preliminary documentation focused on all of the cool features that LBaaS would support that were not available with ELB. By Grizzly, all that we had to show for our efforts was a proof of concept based on a single instance of haproxy. Elastic provisioning was officially out of scope for the core LBaaS effort.
Software design is about choices, and with every choice you make, there’s a chance that you’ve made some other choice impractical, or even impossible. We know that there are, at the very least, syntactic differences between OpenStack and AWS; it is also quite likely that there are deeper semantic mismatches. It may be that the OpenStack community will be able to bridge both syntactic and semantic mismatches between OpenStack and AWS with ease — but given our experiences, it doesn’t seem likely. The devil is in the details, and one must care deeply about the details in order to conquer that devil.
* * * * *
Which brings me to the last point, which is caring about AWS fidelity.
As Thierry Carrez says,
EC2 API support has always been there in OpenStack. It just never found (yet) a set of contributors that cared enough to make it really shine. Canonical promised it (with AWSOME) then let it go. More recently Cloudscaling promised it, but I’ve seen nothing so far. The next in line might just deliver.
Maybe. There is great power in being the one who “cares enough”. And Thierry’s response here begs the question: why doesn’t the OpenStack community care more about supporting the various AWS APIs? (Since EC2 is just the tip of the iceberg.)
That’s a question for the OpenStack community to answer. In the meantime, I can assure you that, at Eucalyptus, we care deeply about AWS compatibility — as do our users. We work towards that goal tirelessly, every day, and I think it’s safe to say it’s because of that passion that we have taken the lead. And it’s a lead that we have every intention of extending.
Anyway. See some of you at Netflix tonite.