Date   

Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

Paul Fremantle <paul@...>
 

Yes I do.

Paul

On 30 January 2018 at 18:06, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Paul

Do you agree that mesh is helpful, but otherwise neither necessary nor sufficient?

A


On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 18:05 Paul Fremantle, <paul@...> wrote:
I think the overall definition is much better. 

I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached storage, software defined firewalls, message brokers, etc) that also might been seen as important to successful cloud native architectures. All the other elements of your list seem to be about approaches not mechanisms, hence the service mesh line therefore seems to be a different category.

Paul

On 30 January 2018 at 17:48, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nice one Brian

Once you said "cloud native is automation"

Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for".  In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and service mesh is overkill for many use cases 



On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 17:30 Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io, <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.






Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

Brian Grant
 

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:48 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nice one Brian

Once you said "cloud native is automation"

 

Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for". 

Good suggestion. I agree they aren't all necessary in every situation. They are intended to serve as examples.
 
In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right"

There's certainly some nuance, which I discuss some in my doc on declarative application management (https://goo.gl/T66ZcD). In particular, it is typically necessary to automatically modify immutable resources via configuration.
 
, and service mesh is overkill for many use cases 

Most automation is overkill for some cases, and there are certainly other means (e.g., Kubernetes services, Weave Scope) of achieving some of the same objectives as service meshes. 
 



On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 17:30 Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io, <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.





Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

alexis richardson
 

Paul

Do you agree that mesh is helpful, but otherwise neither necessary nor sufficient?

A


On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 18:05 Paul Fremantle, <paul@...> wrote:
I think the overall definition is much better. 

I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached storage, software defined firewalls, message brokers, etc) that also might been seen as important to successful cloud native architectures. All the other elements of your list seem to be about approaches not mechanisms, hence the service mesh line therefore seems to be a different category.

Paul

On 30 January 2018 at 17:48, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nice one Brian

Once you said "cloud native is automation"

Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for".  In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and service mesh is overkill for many use cases 



On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 17:30 Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io, <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.





Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

Paul Fremantle <paul@...>
 

I think the overall definition is much better. 

I really like how service meshes enable DRY and declarative intent, but there are lots of other important technologies (such as network attached storage, software defined firewalls, message brokers, etc) that also might been seen as important to successful cloud native architectures. All the other elements of your list seem to be about approaches not mechanisms, hence the service mesh line therefore seems to be a different category.

Paul

On 30 January 2018 at 17:48, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Nice one Brian

Once you said "cloud native is automation"

Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for".  In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and service mesh is overkill for many use cases 



On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 17:30 Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io, <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.





Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

alexis richardson
 

Nice one Brian

Once you said "cloud native is automation"

Re the second section, I suggest "promote... but are not necessary for".  In particular i am not convinced immutability is quite "right", and service mesh is overkill for many use cases 



On Tue, 30 Jan 2018, 17:30 Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io, <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.




Re: updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

Chris Aniszczyk
 

I converted this to a gdoc for easier editing/commenting for now:

Thanks Brian for spearheading this discussion.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.






--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


updating what it means to be "Cloud Native"

Brian Grant
 

The CNCF Charter contains a definition of "Cloud Native" that was very Kubernetes-focused. This definition proved to be inadequate during a number of recent discussions, particularly those around "cloud-native storage" in the Storage WG. I would like to update the definition. My first attempt follows. 

Existing charter text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm that is optimized for modern distributed systems environments capable of scaling to tens of thousands of self healing multi-tenant nodes.

Cloud native systems will have the following properties:

(a) Container packaged. Running applications and processes in software containers as an isolated unit of application deployment, and as a mechanism to achieve high levels of resource isolation. Improves overall developer experience, fosters code and component reuse and simplify operations for cloud native applications.

(b) Dynamically managed. Actively scheduled and actively managed by a central orchestrating process. Radically improve machine efficiency and resource utilization while reducing the cost associated with maintenance and operations.

(c) Micro-services oriented. Loosely coupled with dependencies explicitly described (e.g. through service endpoints). Significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications. The foundation will shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management, and to make the technology ubiquitous and easily available through reliable interfaces.

Proposed text:


The Foundation’s mission is to create and drive the adoption of a new computing paradigm, dubbed Cloud-Native computing, designed to facilitate a high velocity of change to applications, services, and infrastructure at scale in modern distributed-systems environments such as public clouds and private datacenters, while providing high degrees of security, reliability, and availability. To that end, the Foundation seeks to shape the evolution of the technology to advance the state of the art for application management and to foster an ecosystem of Cloud-Native technologies that are interoperable through well defined interfaces, and which are portable, vendor-neutral, and ubiquitous.


The following are some attributes of Cloud Native:

  • Cloud-native services should enable self-service. For instance, cloud-native resources should be self-provisioned from an elastic pool that for typical, on-demand usage appears to be of unlimited capacity.

  • Cloud-native environments are dynamic. They necessitate self-healing and adaptability of applications and services running in such environments.

  • Cloud-native applications, services, and infrastructure facilitate high-velocity management at scale via continuous automation, which is enabled by externalizing control, supporting dynamic configuration, and providing observability. In particular, resource usage is measured to enable optimal and efficient use.

  • Cloud-native services and infrastructure are decoupled from applications, with seamless and transparent consumption experiences.


Non-exhaustive, non-exclusive examples of mechanisms and approaches that promote Cloud-Native approaches include:

  • Immutable infrastructure: Replace individual components and resources rather than updating them in place, which rejuvenates the components/resources, mitigates configuration drift, and facilitates repeatability with predictability, which is essential for high-velocity operations at scale.

  • Application containers: Running applications and processes in containers as units of application deployment isolates them from their operational environments as well as from each other, facilitates higher levels of resource isolation, fosters component reuse, enables portability, increases observability, and standardizes lifecycle management.

  • Microservices: Loosely coupled microservices significantly increase the overall agility and maintainability of applications, particularly for larger organizations.

  • Service meshes: Service meshes decouple service access from the provider topology, which reduces the risk of operational changes, and support inter-component observability.

  • Declarative configuration: Intent-oriented configuration lets users focus on the What rather than the How, and reserves latitude for automated systems achieve the desired state.

  • Event-driven execution: Enables agile, reactive automated processes, and facilitates systems integration.


As new Cloud-Native techniques and technologies emerge, they will be incorporated into the Foundation’s portfolio of recommended practices, approaches, and projects.




Re: Agenda for upcoming CNCF meetings in Feb 2018

John Belamaric
 

Thanks. I have a couple slides in the deck already, I may update them a bit before the meeting.

On Jan 30, 2018, at 9:16 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

John, yes, we can definitely cover that.


On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:11 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,

We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?

Thanks,
John


On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Hi everyone

Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
16th.  The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time.  This is a
call for Agenda items from the TOC community.  I propose the following
rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below.  If someone proposes
something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.

alexis



Feb 6

Theme: Project Status

Tiering:
* Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
* Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
* Discuss project tiers:
- do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
  Inception > Incubation > Graduation
  Attic
- Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
  CNCF Github Org?
- do we need a Sandbox?
  idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
  for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
  gone into K8s incubator
- Sandbox == Inception?
- Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?

Health:
* Reviews & healthchecks
what / when / how?
* Service desk
what else is needed here?
* Project TLC WG?
RFC / Volunteers

Feb 20

Theme: Working Groups

* Purpose
* Scope / Authority
* Status / Progress
* Exit Criteria










Re: Agenda for upcoming CNCF meetings in Feb 2018

alexis richardson
 

John, yes, we can definitely cover that.

On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 2:11 PM, John Belamaric <jbelamaric@...> wrote:
Hi Alexis,

We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?

Thanks,
John


On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Hi everyone

Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
16th. The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time. This is a
call for Agenda items from the TOC community. I propose the following
rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below. If someone proposes
something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.

alexis



Feb 6

Theme: Project Status

Tiering:
* Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
* Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
* Discuss project tiers:
- do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
Inception > Incubation > Graduation
Attic
- Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
CNCF Github Org?
- do we need a Sandbox?
idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
gone into K8s incubator
- Sandbox == Inception?
- Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?

Health:
* Reviews & healthchecks
what / when / how?
* Service desk
what else is needed here?
* Project TLC WG?
RFC / Volunteers

Feb 20

Theme: Working Groups

* Purpose
* Scope / Authority
* Status / Progress
* Exit Criteria





Re: Agenda for upcoming CNCF meetings in Feb 2018

John Belamaric
 

Hi Alexis,

We planned to have the annual inception review for CoreDNS at the Feb 6 meeting. Is there still space on the agenda for that?

Thanks,
John

On Jan 29, 2018, at 4:53 AM, alexis richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Hi everyone

Thank-you for a very well attended and productive TOC call on Jan
16th. The next call is on Feb 6th, in eight days time. This is a
call for Agenda items from the TOC community. I propose the following
rough draft agenda for Feb - shown below. If someone proposes
something more important or pressing, that will get tabled.

alexis



Feb 6

Theme: Project Status

Tiering:
* Graduation reviews: timeline to completion
* Inception to Incubation reviews: ditto
* Discuss project tiers:
- do we want to tweak criteria for entry / promotion
Inception > Incubation > Graduation
Attic
- Mature/Stable, slower moving projects
CNCF Github Org?
- do we need a Sandbox?
idea here is for all CNCF projects to share one sandbox
for super-early stage experiments that otherwise have
gone into K8s incubator
- Sandbox == Inception?
- Sandbox is a CNCF Github Org?

Health:
* Reviews & healthchecks
what / when / how?
* Service desk
what else is needed here?
* Project TLC WG?
RFC / Volunteers

Feb 20

Theme: Working Groups

* Purpose
* Scope / Authority
* Status / Progress
* Exit Criteria



Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Sugu Sougoumarane
 

Many of these companies have talked to us, and we are still in some form of conversation with some of them. The logos we've listed are only those from whom we've received explicit permission from.

PS: mineraftly is an aweseom find! LOL.

PPS: I missed Nozzle's contribution in my original response. Ironically, they are the most noteworthy contributors because they're refactoring our helm charts.

On 29 January 2018 at 21:04, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
FWIW, it looks like there is decent demand for something like Vitess (13790 commits) based on the number of companies that have implemented their own solutions:


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...ncf.io> wrote:
To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation:

I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April, for instance.
 
Slack presentation from 4-5 months ago. They are contributing heavily to vitess, as can be seen from the contribution stats I just sent, and even a small fraction of traffic was non-trivial.

Stichlabs has fully migrated production to Vitess: video

BetterCloud mentions that they use Vitess on their blog.

IMO, the production usage bar is intended primarily to assess maturity and production-worthiness, and secondarily general applicability (though 3 users isn't really enough for that). I don't think maturity and production-worthiness are concerns in this case. I think better documenting production usage via case studies is something the CNCF could help with.

As with Prometheus, Envoy, and Jaegar, Vitess was developed over the last 7 years or so for Youtube's own use. It has become more relevant to other companies with the (comparatively recent) emergence of Kubernetes. If we're looking for more user-initiated projects, Vitess is one of those.



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> wrote:

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria:


The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Stitch Labs

  • Square (Cash App)

  • BetterCloud

  • Quiz of Kings


Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Square (Cash App)

  • StitchLabs


Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating:

  • Booking.com

  • Github

  • Pinterest (new)


There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it.


Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here.


Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.



On 29 January 2018 at 18:08, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719









Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

FWIW, it looks like there is decent demand for something like Vitess (13790 commits) based on the number of companies that have implemented their own solutions:


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 8:03 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation:

I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April, for instance.
 
Slack presentation from 4-5 months ago. They are contributing heavily to vitess, as can be seen from the contribution stats I just sent, and even a small fraction of traffic was non-trivial.

Stichlabs has fully migrated production to Vitess: video

BetterCloud mentions that they use Vitess on their blog.

IMO, the production usage bar is intended primarily to assess maturity and production-worthiness, and secondarily general applicability (though 3 users isn't really enough for that). I don't think maturity and production-worthiness are concerns in this case. I think better documenting production usage via case studies is something the CNCF could help with.

As with Prometheus, Envoy, and Jaegar, Vitess was developed over the last 7 years or so for Youtube's own use. It has become more relevant to other companies with the (comparatively recent) emergence of Kubernetes. If we're looking for more user-initiated projects, Vitess is one of those.



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> wrote:

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria:


The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Stitch Labs

  • Square (Cash App)

  • BetterCloud

  • Quiz of Kings


Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Square (Cash App)

  • StitchLabs


Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating:

  • Booking.com

  • Github

  • Pinterest (new)


There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it.


Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here.


Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.



On 29 January 2018 at 18:08, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719








Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Ken Owens
 

+1 Binding 


On Mon, Jan 29, 2018, 7:23 PM Bryan Cantrill <bryan@...> wrote:

+1 (binding)

        - Bryan

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Chris Aniszczyk <caniszczyk@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:28 PM, Brian Grant via Lists.Cncf.Io <briangrant=google.com@...> wrote:
To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation:

I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April, for instance.
 
Slack presentation from 4-5 months ago. They are contributing heavily to vitess, as can be seen from the contribution stats I just sent, and even a small fraction of traffic was non-trivial.

Stichlabs has fully migrated production to Vitess: video

BetterCloud mentions that they use Vitess on their blog.

IMO, the production usage bar is intended primarily to assess maturity and production-worthiness, and secondarily general applicability (though 3 users isn't really enough for that). I don't think maturity and production-worthiness are concerns in this case. I think better documenting production usage via case studies is something the CNCF could help with.

As with Prometheus, Envoy, and Jaegar, Vitess was developed over the last 7 years or so for Youtube's own use. It has become more relevant to other companies with the (comparatively recent) emergence of Kubernetes. If we're looking for more user-initiated projects, Vitess is one of those.



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> wrote:

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria:


The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Stitch Labs

  • Square (Cash App)

  • BetterCloud

  • Quiz of Kings


Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Square (Cash App)

  • StitchLabs


Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating:

  • Booking.com

  • Github

  • Pinterest (new)


There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it.


Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here.


Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.



On 29 January 2018 at 18:08, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719







Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

To follow up on this, with some links for external confirmation:

I think some of the confusion arose due to data being sampled at different times. The original presentation to the TOC was last April, for instance.
 
Slack presentation from 4-5 months ago. They are contributing heavily to vitess, as can be seen from the contribution stats I just sent, and even a small fraction of traffic was non-trivial.

Stichlabs has fully migrated production to Vitess: video

BetterCloud mentions that they use Vitess on their blog.

IMO, the production usage bar is intended primarily to assess maturity and production-worthiness, and secondarily general applicability (though 3 users isn't really enough for that). I don't think maturity and production-worthiness are concerns in this case. I think better documenting production usage via case studies is something the CNCF could help with.

As with Prometheus, Envoy, and Jaegar, Vitess was developed over the last 7 years or so for Youtube's own use. It has become more relevant to other companies with the (comparatively recent) emergence of Kubernetes. If we're looking for more user-initiated projects, Vitess is one of those.



On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 6:41 PM, Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...> wrote:

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria:


The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Stitch Labs

  • Square (Cash App)

  • BetterCloud

  • Quiz of Kings


Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Square (Cash App)

  • StitchLabs


Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating:

  • Booking.com

  • Github

  • Pinterest (new)


There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it.


Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here.


Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.



On 29 January 2018 at 18:08, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719






Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 5:54 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

Committers from multiple organizations is part of the graduation criteria, not incubation criteria:

That said, growth of non-Google contributors was a concern of mine a year ago, but the situation has changed significantly over the past 9-12 months.

The last 4-5 months:

The top contributor (170 commits, which is a decent number) was from Slack, as was the 3rd-largest contributor. Also in the top 10 were contributors from Hubspot, Github, and Nozzle.



On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719





Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Quinton Hoole
 

Thanks Sugu.

That answers my question.

+1 (non-binding).

Q

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Sugu Sougoumarane <ssougou@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 18:41
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria:


The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Stitch Labs

  • Square (Cash App)

  • BetterCloud

  • Quiz of Kings


Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Square (Cash App)

  • StitchLabs


Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating:

  • Booking.com

  • Github

  • Pinterest (new)


There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it.


Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here.


Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.



On 29 January 2018 at 18:08, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719





Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Bryan Beaudreault <bbeaudreault@...>
 

Hi guys,

I'm an engineer at HubSpot who was part of the decision to adopt vitess over a year ago and have contributed to the project both internally and externally. In that time we have committed numerous features and improvements, and moved along a careful process of evaluation followed by bringing Vitess to production. As Sugu said, we have multiple full time employees working on Vitess, all of which have committed code to Vitess.

In terms of our architecture, we operate microservices at HubSpot, and follow a typical pattern of different microservices getting their own database. We have over 200 separate database clusters of various sizes, each with a QA and production footprint. For the platform teams at HubSpot QA is effectively production, as we have a separate test environment where we stage changes (in total: staging, qa, then prod). Understandably, the definition of production usage should be based on actual customer usage. We have had nearly 100% of QA migrated for months now, and started the prod migration in the last month or so. At this time we have 5 production database clusters migrated to Vitess. That is a small percentage of the total, but these are real applications, powering services used by real HubSpot customers, and we treat prod as mission critical. 

We will be continuing the prod rollout for a few months, but we are well past the evaluation phase. At this point we are fully committed to vitess, with production users, support staff, and active development.

Hope that helps.

Bryan


Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Sugu Sougoumarane
 

Ah, I should have made this explicit in our slides, but here is the information to address your concerns about the graduation criteria:


The following eight companies have vitess serving production traffic:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Stitch Labs

  • Square (Cash App)

  • BetterCloud

  • Quiz of Kings


Of these, engineers from the following companies have made significant contributions to the vitess code base:

  • YouTube

  • Slack

  • Hubspot

  • Flipkart

  • Square (Cash App)

  • StitchLabs


Additionally, the following companies have started making contributions, while in the process of evaluating:

  • Booking.com

  • Github

  • Pinterest (new)


There are also other companies listed in the adopters page. They are evaluating vitess with the intent to mainly use it.


Finally, there are other companies, who are involved with Vitess at various levels, that wish to remain anonymous. So, we haven’t listed them here.


Please let me know if this answers your questions, or if you have others.



On 29 January 2018 at 18:08, Quinton Hoole <quinton.hoole@...> wrote:
I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719





Re: [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Quinton Hoole
 

I share Camille’s concern.

Note that the only explicit requirement in this regard w.r.t. Incubation level is as follows (from https://www.cncf.io/projects/graduation-criteria/):

  • Document that it is being used successfully in production by at least three independent end users which, in the TOC’s judgement, are of adequate quality and scope.
The proposal says this about adopters:

This is an alphabetical list of known adopters of Vitess. Some have already gone into production, and others are at various stages of testing.


Can we perhaps get some clarification about which are in production, and which are still in testing.

Sorry, this should have been brought up in the due diligence, but unfortunately got missed, by the looks of things.

Q

Quinton Hoole

Technical Vice President

America Research Center

2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050

Tel: 408-330-4721   Cell: 408-320-8917   Office # E2-9

Email: quinton.hoole@...   ID#Q00403160


From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Camille Fournier <skamille@...>
Reply-To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Date: Monday, January 29, 2018 at 17:54
To: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] [VOTE] Vitess project proposal (incubation)

Basically, I'm concerned that there are not really actual production users who also are project committers that aren't YouTube/Google.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:53 PM, "Camille Fournier" <skamille@...> wrote:
But it is not yet in prod? Bringing it to prod sounds like not.

On Jan 29, 2018 9:51 PM, "Sugu Sougoumarane" <ssougou@...> wrote:
Just got this confirmation from Hubspot: "Definitely using. Two dedicated full timers working on bringing it to prod. Three others supporting part time, plus me. We have a handful of prod clusters at this point and are starting wider scale rollout soon."

It's likely that the slides were prepared at different times, because they were on staging for a while.

On 29 January 2018 at 17:36, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I'm confused, is hubspot using or evaluating this product? The different slide decks seem to disagree.

On Jan 25, 2018 12:50 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk" <caniszczyk@...g> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite Vitess (https://github.com/youtube/vitess) as an INCUBATION level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC.

Vitess is a MySQL-compatible data orchestrator/platform. It orchestrates management of MySQL instances and has been serving all YouTube database traffic since 2011. Vitess has grown to encompass tens of thousands of MySQL nodes. It is also used by companies such as HubSpot, Slack and Square. 

The full project proposal is located here: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/67

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on this thread... remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719



5621 - 5640 of 7167