Rejected talk proposal: Shaken Fist, thought experiments in simpler IaaS clouds

Share

This proposal was submitted for FOSDEM 2021. Given that acceptances were meant to be sent out on 25 December and its basically a week later I think we can assume that its been rejected. I’ve recently been writing up my rejected proposals, partially because I’ve put in the effort to write them and they might be useful elsewhere, but also because I think its important to demonstrate that its not unusual for experienced speakers to be rejected from these events.


OpenStack today is a complicated beast — not only does it try to perform well for large clusters, but it also embraces a diverse set of possible implementations from hypervisors, storage, networking, and more. This was a deliberate tactical choice made by the OpenStack community years ago, forming a so called “Big Tent” for vendors to collaborate in to build Open Source cloud options. It made a lot of sense at the time to be honest. However, OpenStack today finds itself constrained by the large number of permutations it must support, ten years of software and backwards compatability legacy, and a decreasing investment from those same vendors that OpenStack courted so actively.

Shaken Fist makes a series of simplifying assumptions that allow it to achieve a surprisingly large amount in not a lot of code. For example, it supports only one hypervisor, one hypervisor OS, one networking implementation, and lacks an image service. It tries hard to be respectful of compute resources while idle, and as fast as possible to deploy resources when requested — its entirely possible to deploy a new VM and start it booting in less than a second for example (if the boot image is already held in cache). Shaken Fist is likely a good choice for small deployments such as home labs and telco edge applications. It is unlikely to be a good choice for large scale compute however.

Share

Rejected talk proposal: Design at scale: OpenStack versus Kubernetes

Share

This proposal was submitted for pyconau 2018. It wasn’t accepted, but given I’d put the effort into writing up the proposal I’ll post it here in case its useful some other time. The oblique references to OpensStack are because pycon had an “anonymous” review system in 2018, and I was avoiding saying things which directly identified me as the author.


OpenStack and Kubernetes solve very similar problems. Yet they approach those problems in very different ways. What can we learn from the different approaches taken? The differences aren’t just technical though, there are some interesting social differences too. Continue reading “Rejected talk proposal: Design at scale: OpenStack versus Kubernetes”

Share