Hi,
Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =)
I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server personally)
I started a Change page here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Server
Comments (and improvements to the Change proposal) are appreciated.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:52:29PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =) I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server personally)
Hmmmm -- I'm not sure that's the way we should slice it. Not to lean too hard on the pets-vs-cattle analogy, but long-term, I think that's the better distinction -- which probably includes systems running on bare metal under the "cloud" umbrella. OpenStack and possibly oVirt compute nodes tend to fall in the "cattle" category too, and one can easily see a server farm running many near-identical Atomic instances on bare metal.
We *could* go the other way -- cloud being virt guests and server being bare metal. From the perspective of putting together the release, that does make some sense, but I think it's mostly a useful distinction from _that_ direction, and not so useful from the user/usecase side.
On 23 July 2014 18:29, Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:52:29PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote:
Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =) I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server personally)
Hmmmm -- I'm not sure that's the way we should slice it. Not to lean too hard on the pets-vs-cattle analogy, but long-term, I think that's the better distinction -- which probably includes systems running on bare metal under the "cloud" umbrella. OpenStack and possibly oVirt compute nodes tend to fall in the "cattle" category too, and one can easily see a server farm running many near-identical Atomic instances on bare metal.
We *could* go the other way -- cloud being virt guests and server being bare metal. From the perspective of putting together the release, that does make some sense, but I think it's mostly a useful distinction from _that_ direction, and not so useful from the user/usecase side.
I am not looking at it from cattle, pets, or anything, but is server really focused on bare-metal as much as the services running on a box whether it is a vm, a server, a cartridge, or a cow? And is cloud more focused on images inside of a vm or on the whole ecosystem of a cloud services (eg there has to be hardware some level down in the turtles of clouds.. right?)
-- Matthew Miller mattdm@fedoraproject.org Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ server mailing list server@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
Am 24.07.2014 05:18, schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
On 23 July 2014 18:29, Matthew Miller <mattdm@fedoraproject.org mailto:mattdm@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 05:52:29PM -0400, Colin Walters wrote: > Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =) > I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more > appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal > installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the > clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server > personally) Hmmmm -- I'm not sure that's the way we should slice it. Not to lean too hard on the pets-vs-cattle analogy, but long-term, I think that's the better distinction -- which probably includes systems running on bare metal under the "cloud" umbrella. OpenStack and possibly oVirt compute nodes tend to fall in the "cattle" category too, and one can easily see a server farm running many near-identical Atomic instances on bare metal. We *could* go the other way -- cloud being virt guests and server being bare metal. From the perspective of putting together the release, that does make some sense, but I think it's mostly a useful distinction from _that_ direction, and not so useful from the user/usecase side.I am not looking at it from cattle, pets, or anything, but is server really focused on bare-metal as much as the services running on a box whether it is a vm, a server, a cartridge, or a cow? And is cloud more focused on images inside of a vm or on the whole ecosystem of a cloud services (eg there has to be hardware some level down in the turtles of clouds.. right?)
no - and virtual servers existed before the buzzword clould was invented
a server is a server is a server no matter if it is phyiscal or virtualized
look at P2V conversion - after that it's the same server as before but virtualized, so no - bare metal or virtualized is meaningless
we are VMware driven and a virtual server is identically handeled than a bare metal box years before - really identical
On Wed, Jul 23, 2014, at 09:29 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Hmmmm -- I'm not sure that's the way we should slice it. Not to lean too hard on the pets-vs-cattle analogy, but long-term, I think that's the better distinction
In that you see Cloud as cattle and Server as pets?
which probably includes systems running on bare metal under the "cloud" umbrella. OpenStack and possibly oVirt compute nodes tend to fall in the "cattle" category too, and one can easily see a server farm running many near-identical Atomic instances on bare metal.
Yes, though the Atomic model *does* fully support pets.
(I've had several people think atomic == stateless, and that's definitely not the case)
We *could* go the other way -- cloud being virt guests and server being bare metal. From the perspective of putting together the release, that does make some sense, but I think it's mostly a useful distinction from _that_ direction, and not so useful from the user/usecase side.
There's at the moment a strong technical distinction: whether or not cloud-init is enabled by default.
FWIW I'm fine with keeping it in Cloud as well - the main point of the change is to increase in scope to support bare metal.
On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Colin Walters walters@verbum.org wrote:
Hi,
Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =)
I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server personally)
I started a Change page here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Server
Comments (and improvements to the Change proposal) are appreciated.
Is the eventual idea that Fedora Atomic will be a separate product, or will it be a sub-product/variant of Server (or Server and Cloud) that merely differs in how it gets updated?
Where does this leave the Roller Derby project? Does it merge with Fedora Atomic, or does it go away, or does it leverage a dnf plug-in approach in contrast to an rpm-ostree approach?
Where does this leave Workstation? Its PRD lists a "Better upgrade/rollback control" requirement. And its tech spec says "gnome-software will use PackageKit with the hawkey backend". Since Server PRD and TC don't have an equivalent to this, it's curious that the one project explicitly intended to do what the Workstation PRD requires, is moving under the Server umbrella.
Chris Murphy
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 8:50 PM, Chris Murphy lists@colorremedies.com wrote:
On Jul 23, 2014, at 3:52 PM, Colin Walters walters@verbum.org wrote:
Hi,
Trying to get ahead of the Change process this time =)
I'd like to move Atomic under the Server WG as I feel it's a more appropriate home for Fedora 22, with the increased scope to bare metal installation. (Really it crosses both as Atomic should run in all the clouds that mainline does, but I see Cloud as a specialization of Server personally)
I started a Change page here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Atomic_Server
Comments (and improvements to the Change proposal) are appreciated.
Is the eventual idea that Fedora Atomic will be a separate product, or will it be a sub-product/variant of Server (or Server and Cloud) that merely differs in how it gets updated?
Where does this leave the Roller Derby project? Does it merge with Fedora Atomic, or does it go away, or does it leverage a dnf plug-in approach in contrast to an rpm-ostree approach?
Where does this leave Workstation? Its PRD lists a "Better upgrade/rollback control" requirement. And its tech spec says "gnome-software will use PackageKit with the hawkey backend". Since Server PRD and TC don't have an equivalent to this, it's curious that the one project explicitly intended to do what the Workstation PRD requires, is moving under the Server umbrella.
Longer term we probably should use it for everything once interaction with packages is improved (not sure what the current state is but Colin has been working on it).
On Thu, Jul 24, 2014, at 02:50 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
Is the eventual idea that Fedora Atomic will be a separate product, or will it be a sub-product/variant of Server (or Server and Cloud) that merely differs in how it gets updated?
There's been no discussion of it being a top level entity.
Where does this leave the Roller Derby project? Does it merge with Fedora Atomic, or does it go away, or does it leverage a dnf plug-in approach in contrast to an rpm-ostree approach?
No one is actively working on Roller Derby at the moment, but one aspect of it that I still think is important to capture is tooling for snapshots of *data* in addition to "snapshots" of the OS.
There are definitely cases where one wants to do that in concert. And also very strong cases for allowing them to be separate.
If a kernel upgrade goes wrong, you very likely don't want to rollback your mysql database.
But on a major version upgrade, I can see it being very handy to also snapshot one's data. Data backups though are quite well covered by a wide array of existing free and proprietary software.
Where does this leave Workstation? Its PRD lists a "Better upgrade/rollback control" requirement. And its tech spec says "gnome-software will use PackageKit with the hawkey backend". Since Server PRD and TC don't have an equivalent to this, it's curious that the one project explicitly intended to do what the Workstation PRD requires, is moving under the Server umbrella.
I don't think the rpm-ostree/Atomic model is applicable to general Workstation use at the current time - not having the ability to add or remove packages is much less practical for the freeform development model.
That said, I think it *is* applicable for the specialized Workstation use case of a replicated "Corporate Standard Build", where each client machine is supposed to be running the same software. For that though, the lack of a PackageKit backend is a large gap, though it's of course possible to script updates.
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Chris Murphy -
Colin Walters -
drago01 -
Matthew Miller -
Reindl Harald -
Stephen John Smoogen