After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
Dusty
On 12/12/2016 02:12 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
I'd say so, yes.
Also, someone needs to test the case of migrating an existing system and how that looks.
On 12/12/2016 05:13 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/12/2016 02:12 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
I'd say so, yes.
Can you help to figure out what we need to do for that?
Also, someone needs to test the case of migrating an existing system and how that looks.
I don't think there is a migration. You can really go from one to the other. Since docker-storage-setup only runs on first boot then we shouldn't have to handle this case, correct?
Dusty
On 12/12/2016 05:16 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:13 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/12/2016 02:12 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
I'd say so, yes.
Can you help to figure out what we need to do for that?
Also, someone needs to test the case of migrating an existing system and how that looks.
I don't think there is a migration. You can really go from one to the other. Since docker-storage-setup only runs on first boot then we shouldn't have to handle this case, correct?
Dusty _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
The only way to change from one storage to the other is to use
atomic storage export change the config atomic storage reset atomic storage import
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Daniel J Walsh dwalsh@redhat.com wrote:
The only way to change from one storage to the other is to use
atomic storage export change the config atomic storage reset atomic storage import
Nifty.
A migration tool would have to juggle the potential for insufficient space in /var for the export; or sufficient space for export but then not importing. And then there's cleanup of otherwise dead space used by device mapper. So possibly more than one fs resize is necessary. I'd say probably leave things alone for upgrades, but documenting a strategy for migrating to overlay is OK.
Yes I plan on writing a blog on this once we have an update to docker-storage-setup to handle setting up /var/lib/docker on a separate partition.
https://github.com/projectatomic/docker-storage-setup/pull/175
Once we get this merged, we could easily move to overlayfs as default on atomic host, but still allow a user to switch from overlay back to devicemapper.
On 12/13/2016 12:23 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 8:01 AM, Daniel J Walsh dwalsh@redhat.com wrote:
The only way to change from one storage to the other is to use
atomic storage export change the config atomic storage reset atomic storage import
Nifty.
A migration tool would have to juggle the potential for insufficient space in /var for the export; or sufficient space for export but then not importing. And then there's cleanup of otherwise dead space used by device mapper. So possibly more than one fs resize is necessary. I'd say probably leave things alone for upgrades, but documenting a strategy for migrating to overlay is OK.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Josh Berkus jberkus@redhat.com wrote:
On 12/12/2016 02:12 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
I'd say so, yes.
I suggest it be discussed by all the work groups, on devel@. It might turn out that Fedora Atomic Host goes first, and there may be some variation (Atomic Host has no need for LVM although it doesn't hurt, where Server would almost certainly want to keep it, and Workstation could flip a coin).
Also, someone needs to test the case of migrating an existing system and how that looks.
It'd need a test for enough free space on /var, which first needs an estimate of every single container image in the thinly provisioned storage; stop docker and change the configuration to use overlay instead of device mapper driver; start docker, import all the tar'd containers.
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
This makes sense as the default for the docker package for non-atomic fedora, since the alternative is loopback storage -- are you suggesting this as a change for the atomic host as well? If so, what's the rationale there?
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
Dusty _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/12/2016 05:19 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
This makes sense as the default for the docker package for non-atomic fedora, since the alternative is loopback storage -- are you suggesting this as a change for the atomic host as well? If so, what's the rationale there?
I think the rationale is that we'd like to not have a much different experience whether you are using docker on atomic host or not. My thoughts are that overlay is where we want to be in the future and Fedora is the first place we should try that out.
DM would still be supported via configuration of docker-storage-setup, just like overlay is supported today in the same way.
Thoughts?
Dusty
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:19 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
This makes sense as the default for the docker package for non-atomic fedora, since the alternative is loopback storage -- are you suggesting this as a change for the atomic host as well? If so, what's the rationale there?
I think the rationale is that we'd like to not have a much different experience whether you are using docker on atomic host or not. My thoughts are that overlay is where we want to be in the future and Fedora is the first place we should try that out.
It's a matter of choosing harmonization on non-atomic and atomic fedora at the cost of harmonization between centos/rhel/fedora atomic hosts, so there's gain and loss there, but if overlay is where we want to be in the future (I assume "we" is Red Hat?) it makes sense to get on with it.
DM would still be supported via configuration of docker-storage-setup, just like overlay is supported today in the same way.
Thoughts?
Dusty
On 12/12/2016 05:41 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:19 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
This makes sense as the default for the docker package for non-atomic fedora, since the alternative is loopback storage -- are you suggesting this as a change for the atomic host as well? If so, what's the rationale there?
I think the rationale is that we'd like to not have a much different experience whether you are using docker on atomic host or not. My thoughts are that overlay is where we want to be in the future and Fedora is the first place we should try that out.
It's a matter of choosing harmonization on non-atomic and atomic fedora at the cost of harmonization between centos/rhel/fedora atomic hosts, so there's gain and loss there, but if overlay is where we want to be in the future (I assume "we" is Red Hat?) it makes sense to get on with it.
I wasn't really referring to "we" as Red Hat, although that may be true. I was more going for "we" as the community, simply because IMHO the whole DM loopback thing has been a source of quite a bit of pain with respects to understanding and also "set up" costs and it's not something people have had to do on other platforms I don't think.
The may drag with overlay in the past has been SELinux. That should be fixed now, so let's hammer on it and see if we can break it!!
Dusty
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:46 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:41 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
On 12/12/2016 05:19 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
This makes sense as the default for the docker package for non-atomic fedora, since the alternative is loopback storage -- are you suggesting this as a change for the atomic host as well? If so, what's the rationale there?
I think the rationale is that we'd like to not have a much different experience whether you are using docker on atomic host or not. My thoughts are that overlay is where we want to be in the future and Fedora is the first place we should try that out.
It's a matter of choosing harmonization on non-atomic and atomic fedora at the cost of harmonization between centos/rhel/fedora atomic hosts, so there's gain and loss there, but if overlay is where we want to be in the future (I assume "we" is Red Hat?) it makes sense to get on with it.
I wasn't really referring to "we" as Red Hat, although that may be true. I was more going for "we" as the community, simply because IMHO the whole DM loopback thing has been a source of quite a bit of pain with respects to understanding and also "set up" costs and it's not something people have had to do on other platforms I don't think.
I'm asking because the DM loopback thing is not an issue or pain point for the atomic host, so it's not obvious to me that we'd make that the rationale for changing the storage of the atomic host.
The may drag with overlay in the past has been SELinux. That should be fixed now, so let's hammer on it and see if we can break it!!
Dusty
On 12/12/2016 02:24 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
I think the rationale is that we'd like to not have a much different experience whether you are using docker on atomic host or not. My thoughts are that overlay is where we want to be in the future and Fedora is the first place we should try that out.
DM would still be supported via configuration of docker-storage-setup, just like overlay is supported today in the same way.
I'd the impression from the Docker hackers that overlayfs was their future platform.
On 12/12/2016 05:53 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 12/12/2016 02:24 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
I think the rationale is that we'd like to not have a much different experience whether you are using docker on atomic host or not. My thoughts are that overlay is where we want to be in the future and Fedora is the first place we should try that out.
DM would still be supported via configuration of docker-storage-setup, just like overlay is supported today in the same way.
I'd the impression from the Docker hackers that overlayfs was their future platform.
Docker is moving to a default of Overlay2, I think we should follow this lead.
On 12/12/2016 05:19 PM, Jason Brooks wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Dusty Mabe dusty@dustymabe.com wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
This makes sense as the default for the docker package for non-atomic fedora, since the alternative is loopback storage -- are you suggesting this as a change for the atomic host as well? If so, what's the rationale there?
Overlay allows better memory sharing, so you can run more containers on a single host then you can with Devicemapper.
We are working on patches to docker-storage-setup to allow it to allocate overlayfs to the remaining storage similar to what we do with devicemapper for Atomic Host.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
Dusty _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
cloud mailing list -- cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to cloud-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
On 12/12/2016 05:12 PM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
After I get a bug[1] fixed and out the door I'm going to publish a blog post/docs on setting up Fedora 25 Atomic host and/or Cloud base to use overlay2 as the storage driver for docker.
I'd like for everyone that can to test this out and to start running their container workloads with overlay2 with selinux enabled and let's file bugs and get it cleaned up for Fedora 26 release.
Should we file this as a "change" for Fedora 26?
Forgot the link:
-
Chris Murphy -
Daniel J Walsh -
Dusty Mabe -
Jason Brooks -
Josh Berkus