openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dascalita Dragos <ddrag...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Prototyping for a future architecture
Date Tue, 28 Aug 2018 22:55:23 GMT
I also click on the clean and lean upgrade path, with gradual improvements
to the existing system (which is production-proof), as Michael and Rodric
are suggesting.

At the same time I see how Go would make sense from the Kubernetes and
Knative impl POV, how the trends favor Go over Scala [1], [2], and the
potential benefits from addressing a larger dev audience. @Markus, feel
free to keep me honest if this is where you're coming from.

Trying to keep our options open, I'm thinking: why not take Markus'
challenge, and design these enhancements now to support polyglot
implementations in the future ? This would be the important decision we can
take. BTW, for the data plane itself, we could go at even lower levels to
Envoy or Nginx, to provide superior performance, should we choose to.

[1] -
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F091hdj,%2Fm%2F09gbxjr

[2] - https://octoverse.github.com/

On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 2:53 PM Rodric Rabbah <rodric@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks Michael for raising these points. I share the same opinion and
> sentiment and think a branch with a clean migration story is better and
> makes more sense. I am not entirely convinced that the choice of language
> itself will make the difference vs the new architecture which is quite
> different and should in itself be more efficient.
>
> -r
>
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 4:51 PM Michael Marth <mmarth@adobe.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > IMHO what you propose below is a rather severe change in scope of this
> > discussion and effort.
> > Up until so far this was about _evolving_ the OW architecture. We have
> not
> > explicitly discussed it, but one could assume that it is at least
> feasible
> > to gradually adopt the new architecture. So there would be a smooth path
> > between the current state of the code base and a future one.
> >
> > Your proposal below breaks this assumption somewhat (by proposing a new
> > repo instead of a branch - which will inevitably make the 2 code bases
> > drift apart) as well as explicitly by suggesting a new implementation
> > language. Especially the latter would create a schism between OW-now and
> > OW-future.
> > This schism has implications like the perception of OW-now being
> > deprecated, the _possibility_ of no clean upgrade path, the immediate
> split
> > of the community between *-now and *-future and of course carries the
> risk
> > of the version 2 syndrome.
> >
> > I would propose to implement the future architecture in a branch and in
> > Scala first. If it turns out to be good, then subsequent experiments can
> > show or not-show if a switch of language is of additional value. That
> would
> > allow to make a decision based on data rather than anything else.
> >
> > My2c
> > Michael
> >
> >
> > On 28.08.18, 14:26, "Markus Thömmes" <markusthoemmes@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi all,
> >
> >     Am Mo., 27. Aug. 2018 um 20:04 Uhr schrieb David P Grove <
> > groved@us.ibm.com
> >     >:
> >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > "Markus Thömmes" <markusthoemmes@apache.org> wrote on 08/23/2018
> > 04:19:33
> >     > PM:
> >     >
> >     > >
> >     > > Key point I want to make is: At some point we'll have to start to
> >     > prototype
> >     > > things out and see if our assumptions actually hold water. For
> > example,
> >     > my
> >     > > assumption on a work-stealing backend is pretty much in the air.
> >     > >
> >     > > My proposal for going forward would be:
> >     > > 1. Create a playground for the implementation of some parts of
> the
> > system
> >     > > (a new repository?)
> >     > > 2. Let's build some of the things that are uncontroversial and
> > absolutely
> >     > > needed in any case (ContainerRouter, ContainerManager).
> >     > > 3. Play around with them, hook them up in different ways, see
> what
> > works
> >     > > and what doesn't.
> >     > >
> >     > > Some things will need some testing out to see the scale that the
> >     > components
> >     > > can operate at. These things will narrow or widen the solution
> > space for
> >     > > the more controversial topics around how to distribute containers
> > in the
> >     > > system, how to balance between the routers, work-stealing queue:
> > yes/no
> >     > etc.
> >     > >
> >     > > Having some simple components fleshed out could encourage
> > innovation and
> >     > > creates some facts that we need to focus things into a good
> > direction.
> >     > >
> >     > > What do you think? Too early to start with this and/or the wrong
> > way of
> >     > > doing it?
> >     > >
> >     >
> >     > +1 for starting to prototype.  It's been a good discussion and I
> > think
> >     > we've identified some things that we know we don't know, so time to
> >     > experiment and find out.
> >     >
> >     >
> >     > Not sure what the best logistics are for this.  Would like the work
> > to be
> >     > at Apache (community visibility).  I'm not sure if the best way is
> a
> > new
> >     > repo or an experimental branch of the main repo (we could dial down
> > the
> >     > level of testing on the branch to make it less cumbersome?).  The
> > branch is
> >     > attractive to me because it might make it easier to keep in synch
> > with the
> >     > components we aren't changing.
> >     >
> >
> >     I actually think we should generate a new repository for this.
> Opening
> > PRs
> >     etc. will then not clutter the "main" repository and we don't need to
> > worry
> >     about breaking anything.
> >
> >     If nobody objects I'm going to get "incubator-openwhisk-protoype"
> > generated
> >     and will create a rough outline in the repository (different folders
> > for
> >     different parts of the system).
> >
> >     One more basic question (and this is going to be controversial): Most
> > of
> >     the componentry in the execution layer will have to be build anew.
> I'd
> > like
> >     to switch the implementation language of at least the ContainerRouter
> > to
> >     Golang. Why? Because scale/performance matters a lot for them. As
> Dave
> >     mentioned on multiple occasions, it will greatly matter how many
> > containers
> >     such a Router can handle under load and that scale will define the
> >     implementation alternatives we will have at hand. I therefore would
> > like to
> >     optimise these Routers for minimal overhead. We could go even lower
> > level,
> >     but I guess that'd be at a kinda big maintenance cost.
> >
> >     I can envision the ContainerManager to be simpler to implement in
> > Golang as
> >     well, at least for some of the deployment alternatives (Kubernetes
> > comes to
> >     mind). The Golang based clients seemed superior to me vs. clients in
> > any
> >     other language.
> >
> >     As all of the communication will probably be HTTP only anyway, these
> >     implementations should be swappable anytime.
> >
> >     Comments very welcome! Let me know your opinions.
> >
> >     Cheers,
> >     Markus
> >
> >
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message