Hey Sarah,

* Sarah Jelinek (Sarah.Jelinek at Sun.COM) wrote:
> Hi Glenn,
> >Hey Alok,
> >
> >* Alok Aggarwal (Alok.Aggarwal at Sun.COM) wrote:
> >>On Mon, 27 Jul 2009, Glenn Lagasse wrote:
> >>
> >>>During my 10 minute :-) presentation on thursday, Clay and Sarah both
> >>>brought up an issue with one of the design points for Virtual Machine
> >>>Constructor.  Specifically the plan to allow a user to construct a
> >>>bootable AI media during Virtual Machine Construction.  Their argument
> >>>to not doing this is maintainability, supportability and easing the test
> >>>matrix.  They proposed not allowing the creation of bootable AI media
> >>>during Virtual Machine Construction and only allowing the user to
> >>>specify a path to a pre-constructed bootable AI piece of media.
> >>>
> >>>I like this approach.  This clearly seperates the payload construction
> >>>(bootable AI media) from what is required to construct a Virtual
> >>>Machine.  Users will need to construct a bootable AI media (or use the
> >>>default bootable AI media image) before they can run the Virtual Machine
> >>>Constructor.  The VMC will take this media and de-construct it so that
> >>>it can be used to install the VM the user wants to create.
> >>>Additionally, if the user specifies an AI client manifest in the VMC DC
> >>>manifest then we'll replace the default AI client manifest on the
> >>>bootable AI media (also specified by the user) during the
> >>>de-construction phase[1] of the bootable AI media.
> >>>
> >>>Does anyone have any thoughts on this in addition to what was brought up
> >>>on thursday?  Does anyone think it's a bad idea?
> >>I think a two-step scheme as this one has the potential
> >>to confuse users.
> >>
> >>The target audience for the VMC work seems to be the
> >>cloud/appliance settings where machines need to be provisioned
> >>quickly. Why do we want to expose the (implementation)
> >>detail of using an AI image to achieve that provisioning
> >>in the first place?
> >
> >1) Supportability
> >
> >The VM Construction project is going to use the AI client to perform
> >it's installations.  So, we're constrained in that we can only consume
> >what the AI client can provide.  I think seperating this out is more
> >understandable to users.  It makes the VM construction process more
> >about 'just what's needed to configure a VM's settings' and less about
> >how to deploy inside a VM.
> >
> >1) Ease of maintenance
> >
> >If we construct an AI client image as part of VM construction then we
> >either duplicate the AI client image construction in the VMC DC Manifest
> >or figure out a way to call DC twice in the same context (once to
> >construct an AI image and then again to do the VM construction).
> >
> >Duplicating the AI DC manifest in the VMC DC manifest doesn't sound
> >great to me.  I think the story of: Create an AI client image to
> >whatever specifications you want (within the AI client constraints) then
> >supply that image to VMC isn't that untenable for users.  And, ideally
> >if they download the default AI image and supply that to VMC we'll
> >deconstruct it and put a different AI client manifest on it for them and
> >they won't have to build a thing.  They'll create a custom AI client
> >manifest, a VMC DC manifest and then run DC.
> >
> 
> I think that it would be possible, in the future, to perhaps replace
> the AI image with say a text installer image. In that sense, having
> the user provide the image and having use it, and then deploy the
> installer to install the VM is more flexible by separating out the
> payload(installer). Right now we are constrained to the AI image,
> but nothing I can see means that this will always be true.

I agree.  We're using AI now, that doesn't preclude us from using
something else down the road.

> The support issues of us building our own AI images, or any
> installer image, to me seems a high cost for what we can provide
> using an existing image. The user only knows they have to provide an
> installer, right? They won't know we are de-constructing it and
> putting in a different menu.lst, etc... We can hide those details
> from the users.

Absolutely.  All the user knows is that he has to provide a bootable AI
image (or just AI image once Alok's work is done) and we'll do the rest.
At most, they'll have to supply the image and a customized AI client
manifest if they don't want to use the one on the image they're using
but that's all they'll see of the process.

Thanks Sarah,

-- 
Glenn

Reply via email to