On Dec 17, 2019, at 6:14 AM, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org<mailto:thierry at openstack.org>> wrote:
Zane Bitter wrote:
On 15/12/19 10:20 pm, Rong Zhu wrote:
1.Add Ceilometer API back
Since Gnocchi is out of OpenStack and is unmaintained, we need to add Ceilometer API back again.
This is concerning because even the people who wrote it don't consider it adequate to the job. That inadequacy has been the source of significant reputational damage to OpenStack in the past, and many folks (me included) are anxious to avoid a repeat.
Yes this concerns me too, and even if we workaround the issue by adding Ceilo API back, I'd like to have a long-term plan to solve this issue. It seems there are several options on the table (including integrating Monasca and Ceilometer into a single stack, and other big-bang replacements) but it's never a one-for-one comparison as the solutions seem to address slightly disjoint problem spaces.
I'd like to hear from more Ceilometer users. What are they using Ceilometer for, and what long-term plans would be acceptable. There is a trade-off between adopting short-term workarounds that reintroduce performance issues vs. undergoing a complex migration to the "right" way of fixing this. Like for example there is little point in pushing Monasca/Ceilometer stack integration if most users say, like Catalyst Cloud seems to say, that they would rather have a slow performing Ceilometer API back.
Telemetry is part of the TC "Approved Release" that is eligible for the trademark program; I think at a minimum the TC will want to remove the resurrected Ceilometer API from the "designated sections" that users are required to run to participate in any trademark program that includes the functionality in question. But I think that we should explore other ways of reducing the chance of anyone confusing this for a viable way of building a cloud, including possibly changing the name (Antediluvian API?) and having this part of the stack live outside of the official OpenStack project.
FWIW, telemetry projects are indeed eligible *for consideration*â?¦but Ceilometer has never actually been required by any interop guideline:
Itâ??s come up a few times over the years but was never deemed to have met enough of the criteria  to warrant inclusion in a guideline.
At Your Service,
Mark T. Voelker
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...