requirements_projects:multisite_gap_analysis
This is an old revision of the document!
Cells
* Pros
A single Nova API endpoint for scaling out nova within a region. As
* Cons
Only Nova can scale out for multi-site. Using RPC message(including Nova Cinder Neutron) for cross-site communication, difficult for cross-site integration, upgrade, trouble shooting. Image service shared in multi-site, no solution for multi-site image management. No clear Ceilometer solution used in multi-site: Shared or multi-Ceilometer?
* Shared services Keystone, Nova-API, Cinder, Neutron, Glance, Ceilometer
| Cells | Regions | Heat support multi-regions | Tricircle | Propriety orchestration layer with multi-regions | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pros. | A single Nova API endpoint for scaling out nova within a region | Discrete regions with separate API endpoints and no coordination between regions. | Heat as the multi-site orchestration engine for discrete regions | 1. Single OpenStack API ( Nova, Cinder, Neutron, Ceilometer, Glance, KeyStone ) for multi-site NFV cloud.2. OpenStack ( Nova, Cinder, Neutron, Ceilometer, Glance, KeyStone ) as the multi-site orchestration layer, discrete OpenStack instances consolidated.3. Global quota control by the cascading OpenStack | Propriety orchestration layer as the multi-site orchestration engine for discrete regions.(Almost each cloud solution provider developed their own cloud management system, for example, Huawei ManageOne) |
| Cons. | 1. Only Nova can scale out for multi-site.2. Using RPC message(including Nova Cinder Neutron) for cross-site communication, difficult for cross-site integration, upgrade, trouble shooting.3. Image service shared in multi-site, no solution for multi-site image management.4. No clear Ceilometer solution used in multi-site: Shared or multi-Ceilometer. | 1. Tenant’s resources are discrete and not connected by tenant’s isolated network.2. Networking across different site has to be set up manually.3. Lots of discrete service endpoints.4. No global quota control. | 1. Currently only VPN supported for project level cross-site networking automation 2.No solution for image management and distribution across multi-sites.3.Still Lots of discrete Nova /Cinder /Neutron /Ceilometer service endpoints.4.no good solution for global consistent resource view and quota control. | 1. PoC just finished.2. Currently GRE tunneling supported for project level cross-site networking automation. More cross-site networking mechanism need to be developed.3. General purpose image replication between glance need to be developed | 1. Only Propriety API exposed, the ecosystem of OpenStack API is masked. 2. Still Lots of discrete Nova /Cinder /Neutron /Ceilometer service endpoints |
| Common Cons. | Only VPN supported for project level isolated cross-OpenStack networking, proper L2/L3 cross-OpenStack networking for VNFs should be identified and developed. | Only VPN supported for project level isolated cross-OpenStack networking, proper L2/L3 cross-OpenStack networking for VNFs should be identified and developed. | proper L2/L3 cross-OpenStack networking for VNFs should be identified and developed. | Only VPN supported for project level isolated cross-OpenStack networking, proper L2/L3 cross-OpenStack networking for VNFs should be identified and developed. | |
| Shared services | Keystone, Nova-API, Cinder, Neutron, Glance, Ceilometer | Keystone | Heat | Nova, Cinder, Neutron, Ceilometer, Glance, KeyStone | Propriety orchestration layer |
New identified upstream project that could address the issue are more than welcomed to be added in the above table
requirements_projects/multisite_gap_analysis.1425806540.txt.gz · Last modified: 2015/03/08 09:22 by Chaoyi Huang
Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
