Difference between revisions of "Nova"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
* Scalable architecture | * Scalable architecture | ||
* Many months ahead of us | * Many months ahead of us | ||
| − | * written in Python | + | * written in good Python |
* open source and it appears that they will be following an open development model | * open source and it appears that they will be following an open development model | ||
| + | * have stubbed out all components for testing | ||
=== Minus === | === Minus === | ||
* Closely tied to Eucalyptus' technical decision. i.e. AOE, heavy use of vlans | * Closely tied to Eucalyptus' technical decision. i.e. AOE, heavy use of vlans | ||
* Missing large portions of functionality needed by hosting providers, i.e. metrics and billing. | * Missing large portions of functionality needed by hosting providers, i.e. metrics and billing. | ||
| − | * Only supports AMI's | + | * Only supports AMI's |
| + | * Requires use of euca2ools, which are tainted. | ||
Revision as of 15:20, 9 June 2010
Nova Cloud Review
The purpose of this document is to capture the pluses and minuses of using Nova's code as a part of Cloud servers v2
Plus
- Scalable architecture
- Many months ahead of us
- written in good Python
- open source and it appears that they will be following an open development model
- have stubbed out all components for testing
Minus
- Closely tied to Eucalyptus' technical decision. i.e. AOE, heavy use of vlans
- Missing large portions of functionality needed by hosting providers, i.e. metrics and billing.
- Only supports AMI's
- Requires use of euca2ools, which are tainted.
