1. Maybe Gnocchi is good, but it's not part of OpenStack, currently
there is no one in the Telemetry team shows any interest in maintaining
it, I'd be very happy to see if there is someone raises hand and say: I can
commit to spend some time on this project, fixing bugs, maintaining
document and answering questions either on IRC or via email. If yes, We
will see how it goes in this dev cycle.
2. Monasca is also good, although it doesn't support auditing i.e.
storing samples which is needed by billing purpose but I didn't see it's
mentioned by anyone in this thread. What's more, it introduces kafaka
which is not usually used in all other openstack core services. It's up
to the cloud providers for the adoption, but at least it's not in our
3. The Telemetry team did have discussed to bring the Ceilometer API and
MongoDB support back, given neither Gnocchi nor Monasca is able to store
the original samples. However, nothing is happening, so don't be panic.
the current project core members are also the Telemetry service cloud
providers, we know how important it is to not break anything, to not
bring any more overhead than before. we are so glad to see this
discussion, at least there are still so many people using
Ceilometer/Gnocchi and have concerns about the current upstream
situation. It would be much better that people involved in this
discussion could participate in the design and implementation of the
Again, thanks for all the feedback and suggestions!
On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 5:41 PM Sam Morrison <sorrison at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 Dec 2019, at 10:14 pm, Thierry Carrez <thierry at openstack.org>
> > 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
> Nectar Cloud has been a ceilometer user from the early days. Well we tried
> to be and couldnâ??t use it as ceilometer api and mongo db just didnâ??t work
> at our scale. Gnocchi solved all these issues for us and we use
> ceilometer/aodh/gnocchi happily in production for several years now.
> If telemetry project is going down the path of the old days it will mean
> we will either drop ceilometer all together and look at alternative
> solutions like monasca or Prometheus etc. I just canâ??t see how the old
> architecture of ceilometer is ever going to be usable.
> If there is some confidence that gnocchi publisher will be supported in
> the future we would keep using gnocchi and just maintain it ourselves. Itâ??s
> an open source project and I was hoping the openstack community could keep
> it going. Weâ??d be happy to help maintain it at least.
> We use ceilometer/gnocchi to collect and store all metrics from openstack
> services. We have also written some custom pollsters and gnocchi is quite
> flexible here to allow this. With these metrics we build reports for our
> users, our operators, our funders (the government)
> Please reconsider your direction much like adding cpu_util back in (thank
> you for this!)
> >> 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.
> > Legacy API?
> > --
> > Thierry Carrez (ttx)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...