Date   

Re: rook.io

Bassam Tabbara <Bassam.Tabbara@...>
 

The most severe failure cases are ones that could lead to permanent data loss. There are a few, but first some background:

- Volumes are backed by virtual storage pools.
- Virtual pools are made up of a number of storage nodes that work together to ensure that data is stored reliably
- A pool can be configured to store replicas of data (typically 3x) or erasure coded chunks (different algorithms and factors are supported).
- when a storage node is lost the others help re-replicate the data (i.e. data maintenance).

Now the failure cases:

- if too many nodes in the same pool are lost within a short window of time you’ll suffer data loss, for example, all three nodes in a 3x replica are lost at the same time.
- if there are not enough resources to replicate/regenerate the data before more losses occur.

To guard against such failures, most systems (including Rook) do the following:

- storage nodes are spread across failure domains (different hosts, racks, zones etc.)
- prioritize resources for “data maintenance” over resources used for “normal" data operations.

In the context of running Rook in AWS, this means ensuring that the Rook storage pods are spread across the nodes in the cluster and across availability zones. Also ensuring that you’ve sized the machines and network to support data maintenance. Prioritization schemes also help, for example, SRV-IO is a popular way to do so without massive changes to the network.

Finally, this is a good example of why building a control plane that can automate such decisions/tradeoffs helps ensure success with storage.

On Jun 6, 2017, at 1:06 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

What are the failure cases for this ?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Bassam Tabbara
<Bassam.Tabbara@...> wrote:
Alexis,

Thanks! We joined the Storage WG and will work with Ben on CSI and future
projects.

The use case was running Rook Block storage on-top of ephemeral/instance
storage on EC2 instances vs. using EBS storage. Rook would handle the
replication of data across instances and stripe across them for performance.
Pods in the cluster would see this like any other volume.

For Pod failover, the detach / detach cycle is much faster than EBS. One of
our users compared EBS to Rook [1] and showed that Rook volume failover
happened in less than minutes vs. up to an hour with EBS.

Also EBS volumes only support a single writer (ReadWriteOnce in K8S) which
makes them a poor candidate for hot failover scenarios underneath, say,
Postgres or MySql. With the work we’re doing on the Rook Volume Plugin [2]
we plan to support ReadWriteMany to support a hotter failover where the
app/service ontop can handle the fencing.

Finally, there are cost and performance tradeoffs for running on-top of
ephemeral/instance storage vs. EBS. For example, a lot of the instance
storage is unused in most deployments and has a high performance.

Happy to discuss in more detail.

Thanks!
Bassam

[1] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgitter.im%2Frook%2Frook%3Fat%3D58baff6f872fc8ce62b6ee26&data=02%7C01%7CBassam.Tabbara%40quantum.com%7Cac58cc3d749e453fda4e08d4ad178f30%7C322a135f14fb4d72aede122272134ae0%7C1%7C0%7C636323764076275976&sdata=8dSWMXRMqtmPH5goZx4O%2BpVTesQEuS4cb21qgJmmTw0%3D&reserved=0
[2] https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fgithub.com%2Fkubernetes%2Fkubernetes%2Fpull%2F46843&data=02%7C01%7CBassam.Tabbara%40quantum.com%7Cac58cc3d749e453fda4e08d4ad178f30%7C322a135f14fb4d72aede122272134ae0%7C1%7C0%7C636323764076275976&sdata=UGWvqRpP8P0sanBnGygcfwIYiU7tvKobJ7s8JtiWlFw%3D&reserved=0


On Jun 6, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Bassam

It would be good for Rook team to join Storage WG, if you haven't done so
yet.

QQ: you said that k8s use cases that run on EBS have high failover
times & that you can improve this. I missed the details of that. Can
you say more please?

alexis


Re: rook.io

alexis richardson
 

What are the failure cases for this ?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 5:41 PM, Bassam Tabbara
<Bassam.Tabbara@...> wrote:
Alexis,

Thanks! We joined the Storage WG and will work with Ben on CSI and future
projects.

The use case was running Rook Block storage on-top of ephemeral/instance
storage on EC2 instances vs. using EBS storage. Rook would handle the
replication of data across instances and stripe across them for performance.
Pods in the cluster would see this like any other volume.

For Pod failover, the detach / detach cycle is much faster than EBS. One of
our users compared EBS to Rook [1] and showed that Rook volume failover
happened in less than minutes vs. up to an hour with EBS.

Also EBS volumes only support a single writer (ReadWriteOnce in K8S) which
makes them a poor candidate for hot failover scenarios underneath, say,
Postgres or MySql. With the work we’re doing on the Rook Volume Plugin [2]
we plan to support ReadWriteMany to support a hotter failover where the
app/service ontop can handle the fencing.

Finally, there are cost and performance tradeoffs for running on-top of
ephemeral/instance storage vs. EBS. For example, a lot of the instance
storage is unused in most deployments and has a high performance.

Happy to discuss in more detail.

Thanks!
Bassam

[1] https://gitter.im/rook/rook?at=58baff6f872fc8ce62b6ee26
[2] https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/pull/46843


On Jun 6, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Bassam

It would be good for Rook team to join Storage WG, if you haven't done so
yet.

QQ: you said that k8s use cases that run on EBS have high failover
times & that you can improve this. I missed the details of that. Can
you say more please?

alexis


Re: Infrakit Questions

Ihor Dvoretskyi
 

+1 to Rob's initiative on the demo.

Rob and Digital Rebar are doing a valuable job at Kubernetes community - it should be useful to share it across the whole CNCF community.


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 7:04 PM Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Alexis,


For InfrasKit specifically, I'm interested in where this fits or replaces Docker Machine.  There seem to be elements of Docker Machine in the design.

Rob

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: rook.io

Bassam Tabbara <Bassam.Tabbara@...>
 

Alexis,

Thanks! We joined the Storage WG and will work with Ben on CSI and future projects.

The use case was running Rook Block storage on-top of ephemeral/instance storage on EC2 instances vs. using EBS storage. Rook would handle the replication of data across instances and stripe across them for performance. Pods in the cluster would see this like any other volume.

For Pod failover, the detach / detach cycle is much faster than EBS. One of our users compared EBS to Rook [1] and showed that Rook volume failover happened in less than minutes vs. up to an hour with EBS.

Also EBS volumes only support a single writer (ReadWriteOnce in K8S) which makes them a poor candidate for hot failover scenarios underneath, say, Postgres or MySql. With the work we’re doing on the Rook Volume Plugin [2] we plan to support ReadWriteMany to support a hotter failover where the app/service ontop can handle the fencing.

Finally, there are cost and performance tradeoffs for running on-top of ephemeral/instance storage vs. EBS. For example, a lot of the instance storage is unused in most deployments and has a high performance.

Happy to discuss in more detail.

Thanks!
Bassam



On Jun 6, 2017, at 9:03 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

Bassam

It would be good for Rook team to join Storage WG, if you haven't done so yet.

QQ: you said that k8s use cases that run on EBS have high failover
times & that you can improve this.  I missed the details of that.  Can
you say more please?

alexis


Re: Infrakit Questions

Rob Hirschfeld
 

Alexis,


For InfrasKit specifically, I'm interested in where this fits or replaces Docker Machine.  There seem to be elements of Docker Machine in the design.

Rob

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.


rook.io

alexis richardson
 

Bassam

It would be good for Rook team to join Storage WG, if you haven't done so yet.

QQ: you said that k8s use cases that run on EBS have high failover
times & that you can improve this. I missed the details of that. Can
you say more please?

alexis


Re: Infrakit Questions

alexis richardson
 

Rob

That would be interesting & could also be good material for the CNCF website / blog.

a


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:51 AM, Rob Hirschfeld <rob@...> wrote:
All,

I'd be happy to present / demo Digital Rebar to provide another cloud native perspective on how to address hybrid infrastructure automation.  I believe that would help provide a helpful perspective on operational concerns and how to address them in a way that fits the CNCF community.  As you know, we've been heavily involved in the Kubernetes community and have been showing an approach that uses the community Ansible for Kubernetes.  We've also done demos also showing LinuxKit integration.

Rob

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.



Re: Infrakit Questions

Alex Baretto
 

+1 to Alexis and Rob.

I'd really like to see a good breakdown comparison between Infrakit and digital rebar, bosh, cloudformation, fog,and others

Alex Baretto



On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 08:51 Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc <Rob Hirschfeld via cncf-toc > wrote:
All,

I'd be happy to present / demo Digital Rebar to provide another cloud native perspective on how to address hybrid infrastructure automation.  I believe that would help provide a helpful perspective on operational concerns and how to address them in a way that fits the CNCF community.  As you know, we've been heavily involved in the Kubernetes community and have been showing an approach that uses the community Ansible for Kubernetes.  We've also done demos also showing LinuxKit integration.

Rob

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.



Re: Infrakit Questions

Rob Hirschfeld
 

All,

I'd be happy to present / demo Digital Rebar to provide another cloud native perspective on how to address hybrid infrastructure automation.  I believe that would help provide a helpful perspective on operational concerns and how to address them in a way that fits the CNCF community.  As you know, we've been heavily involved in the Kubernetes community and have been showing an approach that uses the community Ansible for Kubernetes.  We've also done demos also showing LinuxKit integration.

Rob

Rob
____________________________
Rob Hirschfeld, 512-773-7522
RackN CEO/Founder (rob@...)

I am in CENTRAL (-6) time
http://robhirschfeld.com
twitter: @zehicle, github: zehicle

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison.  And other related tech you see in the
space.


Continued InfraKit Discussion

Chris Aniszczyk
 

From today's CNCF TOC call, there was some discussion on how InfraKit compares to Terraform, BOSH and Digital Rebar. Thanks again to David for taking the time to present.

Let's use this thread to have that discussion.

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


Infrakit Questions

alexis richardson
 

Thanks David, Patrick et al., for Infrakit pres today!

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Lzy94UNzdSXkqZCvrwjkcChKpU8u2waDqGx_Sjy5eJ8/edit#slide=id.g22ccd21963_2_0


Per Bryan's Q re Terraform, it would also be good to hear about BOSH &
Infrakit feature comparison. And other related tech you see in the
space.


Re: Agenda for TOC 4/5/17 Meeting

Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
 

+1

On 6 June 2017 at 16:30, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:
I want this.


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:27 PM Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
Dear all,

is there any update from your side? I.e. is this something CNCF
definitely wants and, if yes, how should we best proceed?


From our side, there will be a technical hangout tonight @ 19:00 –
20:00 (CEST) which will include Prometheus, Google people from
stackdriver, and Paul Dix to see if we can start with more than one
project to increase reach.
Monarch was also briefly mentioned, but I don't dare to hope to get
good data and specs on that, yet.

The results of this will be at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15cfrwzP_iOieFDr7WLfThNXKKbNKD60ER2sf_ybNPts/edit#heading=h.giywmrdmh8rd


If any of you want to join, please let me know ASAP. Sorry for the
very late notice, I was on holiday the last 2.5 weeks and am still
tying up loose ends.


Richard


Re: Agenda for TOC 4/5/17 Meeting

alexis richardson
 

prometheus' brother was epimetheus.

epimetrics? prometrics?

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
So that makes at least two of us.

Can I consider this the OK from CNCF? You have firm commitment from my side.


Feel free to start whatever process on your side at any time.


The only open question from my side would be the naming as
"openmetrics" is relatively contested. I was thinking of one of the
siblings of Prometheus, but a different one from the one you suggested
back then. I will dig out my notes on that.


Richard


Re: Agenda for TOC 4/5/17 Meeting

Richard Hartmann
 

So that makes at least two of us.

Can I consider this the OK from CNCF? You have firm commitment from my side.


Feel free to start whatever process on your side at any time.


The only open question from my side would be the naming as
"openmetrics" is relatively contested. I was thinking of one of the
siblings of Prometheus, but a different one from the one you suggested
back then. I will dig out my notes on that.


Richard


Re: Agenda for TOC 4/5/17 Meeting

alexis richardson
 

I want this.


On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 3:27 PM Richard Hartmann <richih@...> wrote:
Dear all,

is there any update from your side? I.e. is this something CNCF
definitely wants and, if yes, how should we best proceed?


From our side, there will be a technical hangout tonight @ 19:00 –
20:00 (CEST) which will include Prometheus, Google people from
stackdriver, and Paul Dix to see if we can start with more than one
project to increase reach.
Monarch was also briefly mentioned, but I don't dare to hope to get
good data and specs on that, yet.

The results of this will be at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15cfrwzP_iOieFDr7WLfThNXKKbNKD60ER2sf_ybNPts/edit#heading=h.giywmrdmh8rd


If any of you want to join, please let me know ASAP. Sorry for the
very late notice, I was on holiday the last 2.5 weeks and am still
tying up loose ends.


Richard


Re: Agenda for TOC 4/5/17 Meeting

Richard Hartmann
 

Dear all,

is there any update from your side? I.e. is this something CNCF
definitely wants and, if yes, how should we best proceed?


From our side, there will be a technical hangout tonight @ 19:00 –
20:00 (CEST) which will include Prometheus, Google people from
stackdriver, and Paul Dix to see if we can start with more than one
project to increase reach.
Monarch was also briefly mentioned, but I don't dare to hope to get
good data and specs on that, yet.

The results of this will be at
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15cfrwzP_iOieFDr7WLfThNXKKbNKD60ER2sf_ybNPts/edit#heading=h.giywmrdmh8rd


If any of you want to join, please let me know ASAP. Sorry for the
very late notice, I was on holiday the last 2.5 weeks and am still
tying up loose ends.


Richard


Re: TOC Agenda for 6/6/2017

Chris Aniszczyk
 

You should be set now Camille, sorry, we had a bit of a snafu with the public calendar today.

On Mon, Jun 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Camille Fournier <skamille@...> wrote:
I got a meeting invite cancellation what gives? That unblocked my work calendar so better resend or I'll have another meeting put in that spot

On Jun 5, 2017 6:47 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for the meeting tomorrow at 8am PT: https://goo.gl/ZPFTU8

The agenda is mostly centered around two community presentations from InfraKit and Rook.

Thanks!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




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


Re: TOC Agenda for 6/6/2017

Camille Fournier
 

I got a meeting invite cancellation what gives? That unblocked my work calendar so better resend or I'll have another meeting put in that spot

On Jun 5, 2017 6:47 PM, "Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Here's the deck for the meeting tomorrow at 8am PT: https://goo.gl/ZPFTU8

The agenda is mostly centered around two community presentations from InfraKit and Rook.

Thanks!

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


TOC Agenda for 6/6/2017

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Here's the deck for the meeting tomorrow at 8am PT: https://goo.gl/ZPFTU8

The agenda is mostly centered around two community presentations from InfraKit and Rook.

Thanks!

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


CNCF Storage Working Group Meeting

Chris Aniszczyk
 

FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Benjamin Hindman <benh@...>
Date: Wed, May 31, 2017 at 5:20 AM
Subject: CNCF Storage Working Group Meeting
To: cncf-wg-storage@googlegroups.com


Hi,

We'd like to get our first meeting scheduled. The proposed agenda for the first meeting:

  * Introductions (who, why).
  * Hear from Saad Ali and Jie Yu about the Container Storage Interface (CSI).
  * Collect topics for future meetings.

Please fill out the this Doodle poll for a time that works on a recurring basis starting next week (we'll plan on having this meeting scheduled every 2 weeks for now and then we'll adjust as necessary). I'll send out meeting invitations on Friday afternoon June 2nd.

Looking forward to the first meeting!

Ben

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cncf-wg-storage" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cncf-wg-storage+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to cncf-wg-storage@...om.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cncf-wg-storage/CADcAm2sKKLfvdSAuG2cjMVnT2Z_5MP-kowPPY1McoXy0%2B-0Ppg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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

6221 - 6240 of 7189