[Edge-computing] [tripleo][FEMDC] IEEE Fog Computing: Call for Contributions - Deadline Approaching

Bogdan Dobrelya bdobreli at redhat.com
Mon Nov 5 17:50:32 UTC 2018

Update: I have yet found co-authors, I'll keep drafting that position 
paper [0],[1]. Just did some baby steps so far. I'm open for feedback 
and contributions!

PS. Deadline is Nov 9 03:00 UTC, but *may be* it will be extended, if 
the event chairs decide to do so. Fingers crossed.



On 11/5/18 3:06 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote:
> Thank you for a reply, Flavia:
>> Hi Bogdan
>> sorry for the late reply - yesterday was a Holiday here in Brazil!
>> I am afraid I will not be able to engage in this collaboration with
>> such a short time...we had to have started this initiative a little
>> earlier...
> That's understandable.
> I hoped though a position paper is something we (all who reads that, not 
> just you and me) could achieve in a couple of days, without a lot of 
> research associated. That's a postion paper, which is not expected to 
> contain formal prove or implementation details. The vision for tooling 
> is the hardest part though, and indeed requires some time.
> So let me please [tl;dr] the outcome of that position paper:
> * position: given Always Available autonomy support as a starting point,
>    define invariants for both operational and data storage consistency
>    requirements of control/management plane (I've already drafted some in
>    [0])
> * vision: show that in the end that data synchronization and conflict
>    resolving solution just boils down to having a causally
>    consistent KVS (either causal+ or causal-RT, or lazy replication
>    based, or anything like that), and cannot be achieved with *only*
>    transactional distributed database, like Galera cluster. The way how
>    to show that is an open question, we could refer to the existing
>    papers (COPS, causal-RT, lazy replication et al) and claim they fit
>    the defined invariants nicely, while transactional DB cannot fit it
>    by design (it's consensus protocols require majority/quorums to
>    operate and being always available for data put/write operations).
>    We probably may omit proving that obvious thing formally? At least for
>    the postion paper...
> * opportunity: that is basically designing and implementing of such a
>    causally-consistent KVS solution (see COPS library as example) for
>    OpenStack, and ideally, unifying it for PaaS operators
>    (OpenShift/Kubernetes) and tenants willing to host their containerized
>    workloads on PaaS distributed over a Fog Cloud of Edge clouds and
>    leverage its data synchronization and conflict resolving solution
>    as-a-service. Like Amazon dynamo DB, for example, except that fitting
>    the edge cases of another cloud stack :)
> [0] 
> https://github.com/bogdando/papers-ieee/blob/master/ICFC-2019/challenges.md
>> As for working collaboratively with latex, I would recommend using
>> overleaf - it is not that difficult and has lots of edition resources
>> as markdown and track changes, for instance.
>> Thanks and good luck!
>> Flavia
> On 11/2/18 5:32 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote:
>> Hello folks.
>> Here is an update for today. I crated a draft [0], and spend some time 
>> with building LaTeX with live-updating for the compiled PDF... The 
>> latter is only informational, if someone wants to contribute, please 
>> follow the instructions listed by the link (hint: you need no to have 
>> any LaTeX experience, only basic markdown knowledge should be enough!)
>> [0] 
>> https://github.com/bogdando/papers-ieee/#in-the-current-development-looking-for-co-authors 
>> On 10/31/18 6:54 PM, Ildiko Vancsa wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Thank you for sharing your proposal.
>>> I think this is a very interesting topic with a list of possible 
>>> solutions some of which this group is also discussing. It would also 
>>> be great to learn more about the IEEE activities and have experience 
>>> about the process in this group on the way forward.
>>> I personally do not have experience with IEEE conferences, but I’m 
>>> happy to help with the paper if I can.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ildikó
>> (added from the parallel thread)
>>>> On 2018. Oct 31., at 19:11, Mike Bayer <mike_mp at zzzcomputing.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2018 at 10:57 AM Bogdan Dobrelya <bdobreli at 
>>>> redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> (cross-posting openstack-dev)
>>>>> Hello.
>>>>> [tl;dr] I'm looking for co-author(s) to come up with "Edge clouds data
>>>>> consistency requirements and challenges" a position paper [0] (papers
>>>>> submitting deadline is Nov 8).
>>>>> The problem scope is synchronizing control plane and/or
>>>>> deployments-specific data (not necessary limited to OpenStack) across
>>>>> remote Edges and central Edge and management site(s). Including the 
>>>>> same
>>>>> aspects for overclouds and undercloud(s), in terms of TripleO; and 
>>>>> other
>>>>> deployment tools of your choice.
>>>>> Another problem is to not go into different solutions for Edge
>>>>> deployments management and control planes of edges. And for tenants as
>>>>> well, if we think of tenants also doing Edge deployments based on Edge
>>>>> Data Replication as a Service, say for Kubernetes/OpenShift on top of
>>>>> OpenStack.
>>>>> So the paper should name the outstanding problems, define data
>>>>> consistency requirements and pose possible solutions for 
>>>>> synchronization
>>>>> and conflicts resolving. Having maximum autonomy cases supported for
>>>>> isolated sites, with a capability to eventually catch up its 
>>>>> distributed
>>>>> state. Like global database [1], or something different perhaps (see
>>>>> causal-real-time consistency model [2],[3]), or even using git. And
>>>>> probably more than that?.. (looking for ideas)
>>>> I can offer detail on whatever aspects of the "shared  / global
>>>> database" idea.  The way we're doing it with Galera for now is all
>>>> about something simple and modestly effective for the moment, but it
>>>> doesn't have any of the hallmarks of a long-term, canonical solution,
>>>> because Galera is not well suited towards being present on many
>>>> (dozens) of endpoints.     The concept that the StarlingX folks were
>>>> talking about, that of independent databases that are synchronized
>>>> using some kind of middleware is potentially more scalable, however I
>>>> think the best approach would be API-level replication, that is, you
>>>> have a bunch of Keystone services and there is a process that is
>>>> regularly accessing the APIs of these keystone services and
>>>> cross-publishing state amongst all of them.   Clearly the big
>>>> challenge with that is how to resolve conflicts, I think the answer
>>>> would lie in the fact that the data being replicated would be of
>>>> limited scope and potentially consist of mostly or fully
>>>> non-overlapping records.
>>>> That is, I think "global database" is a cheap way to get what would be
>>>> more effective as asynchronous state synchronization between identity
>>>> services.
>>> Recently we’ve been also exploring federation with an IdP (Identity 
>>> Provider) master: 
>>> https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/Keystone_edge_architectures#Identity_Provider_.28IdP.29_Master_with_shadow_users 
>>> One of the pros is that it removes the need for synchronization and 
>>> potentially increases scalability.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ildikó

Best regards,
Bogdan Dobrelya,
Irc #bogdando

More information about the Edge-computing mailing list