Mailing-List: contact dev-help@whirr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@whirr.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of savu.andrei@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA++geaCNmeeRm33+P3j-qgDf+cBVv3Byf6UU8W1euA7SjDimbQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAHZL8y_B5SO6j74x7fxjVSPL88UrfUSZYRcjb28kSY-LRiaZog@mail.gmail.com>
 <5115B81E.802@gmail.com>
 <CAHZL8y9F_sxihBw80iwj_Q1=GxiBaJLqVqNPkrAOs81MfsfgUA@mail.gmail.com>
 <51295DC3.5020801@gmail.com>
 <CAHZL8y_=nB5AnKBihzLiZwVOeKyd-Wkiuo+f6JR7AcUrunHXGw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA++geaCNmeeRm33+P3j-qgDf+cBVv3Byf6UU8W1euA7SjDimbQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Savu <savu.andrei@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:21:16 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAHZL8y9in4rFT9hGfLSEemA_PPdcrCoaF0n1rf36rr2HuEwLbQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Provisioning as a Dedicated Service
To: "dev@whirr.apache.org" <dev@whirr.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d86100a39f304d6d70551

--089e010d86100a39f304d6d70551
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Thanks Ashish!

How would you use or extend Provisionr?

-- Andrei Savu

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Ashish <paliwalashish@gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrei,
>
> Can you add me as contributor, if it works for you :)
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Andrei Savu <savu.andrei@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi guys -
> >
> > I have submitted a proposal to bring Axemblr Provisionr to the Apache
> > Incubator (see general@incubator.apache.org):
> >
> > http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/ProvisionrProposal
> >
> > And this is a slide deck that explains medium term plans & challenges:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.slideshare.net/savu.andrei/creating-pools-of-virtual-machines-apachecon-na-2013
> >
> > If you want to join as a mentor / initial contributor you are welcome!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > -- Andrei Savu
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Paul Baclace <paul.baclace@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On 20130209 4:37 , Andrei Savu wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 4:44 AM, Paul Baclace <paul.baclace@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>  Do you have any rough idea of state transition latency and throughput
> > you
> > >>> get when using Activiti and how this compares to using Whirr/jclouds
> > in a
> > >>> single process?
> > >>>
> > >>>  Is this important? During pool creation most of the time is spent in
> > >> loops
> > >> waiting for external services. We try to keep each activity as short
> as
> > >> possible to avoid long running transactions.
> > >>
> > >>  The reason I ask is that although Activiti has good support for
> > designing
> > >>> processes and programmatic control of the engine, it is necessarily
> DB
> > >>> transaction limited. An obvious alternative design is to use
> something
> > >>> that
> > >>> is actor based which can run entirely in RAM. I admit that an actor
> > >>> control
> > >>> system would make it harder to trace what happened, compared to
> > business
> > >>> process control which is very much oriented toward human-in-the-loop.
> > >>>
> > >>>  I think it's going to take while for us to hit that limitation. I
> see
> > >> good
> > >> performance even if we are using an embedded H2 database - it should
> > work
> > >> a
> > >> lot better with a PostgresSQL server. It's true that Activiti is
> > oriented
> > >> towards human-in-the-loop processes but it works well also for
> > >> unsupervised
> > >> ones.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>  As long as the orchestration is at the appropriate granularity (not
> > > micro-managing), then using Activiti should be fine. Another thing it
> can
> > > do that is more challenging for a single machine actor system is
> preserve
> > > state across controller restarts.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> thanks
> ashish
>
> Blog: http://www.ashishpaliwal.com/blog
> My Photo Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/ashishpaliwal
>

--089e010d86100a39f304d6d70551--