Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Aditya Patawari]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Joe Brockmeier  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> For the folks who were at Flock last week, this is a recap of the
> discussion we had and what I recall as the general agreement in the
> room. If my memory has failed me, please add or correct as necessary.
>
> For folks who weren't at Flock (or were, but not in the cloud working
> group meeting), this is a brief recap of what we discussed and is
> proposed - but *not* decided. I would like to reach a decision /
> consensus here, so let's discuss here and I'll ask the working group
> members to explicitly +1 (or not) within 72 hours. But absent any hard
> -1s, better proposals, etc. then I'd like to close the discussion within
> that timeframe so we can move on to discussing with FESCo and other
> groups (Websites, marketing) who we'll need to sync with.
>
> Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora
> Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the
> Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition.
>
> However, we know that Atomic doesn't fit well in the standard Fedora
> six-month cycle, so we'd further propose making the two-week releases
> the default deliverable - and work on appropriate testing so that users
> who are using Fedora Atomic can expect that their containers and
> Kubernetes orchestration won't break, but also will not need to care
> whether the underlying release is based on F23, rawhide, etc.
>
> This is going to require a lot of work to be done on testing so we can
> ensure that we're not breaking anything and containers "just work" on
> Atomic as users follow the updates on the 2-week cycle.
>
> This will, I believe, need to go to FESCo and we'll have to put in some
> serious cycles on documentation and work on marketing this. It's also
> worth noting that this will mean very frequent releases and marketing
> touchpoints as opposed to just alpha, beta, and final releases every six
> months.
>
> We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away -
> but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing.
>
> Finally, we also discussed that the host was only part of the larger
> effort - we also need to pour some attention into improving the Docker
> image, making that smaller and a better option.
>
> Thoughts, comments, flames? Did I miss anything?
For the sake of completion, Kushal and many others pointed out, that
we need to ensure that we clearly highlight on our downloads page and
at other appropriate location that we still support base image. The
move should not confuse users and should not give an impression that
Atomic is the only cloud offering that we have.

>
> (Apologies if this is not the most coherent summary - I'm typing this
> from the floor of LinuxCon North America and not able to give this the
> amount of revision I would usually give for something of this
> importance. However, time is a factor as the decision is required to
> move forward on other items.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> jzb
> --
> Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
> j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
>
>
> ___
> cloud mailing list
> cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Lalatendu Mohanty]

On 08/19/2015 04:24 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote:

Hi all,

For the folks who were at Flock last week, this is a recap of the
discussion we had and what I recall as the general agreement in the
room. If my memory has failed me, please add or correct as necessary.

For folks who weren't at Flock (or were, but not in the cloud working
group meeting), this is a brief recap of what we discussed and is
proposed - but *not* decided. I would like to reach a decision /
consensus here, so let's discuss here and I'll ask the working group
members to explicitly +1 (or not) within 72 hours. But absent any hard
-1s, better proposals, etc. then I'd like to close the discussion within
that timeframe so we can move on to discussing with FESCo and other
groups (Websites, marketing) who we'll need to sync with.

Given that a great deal of interesting work is going into the Fedora
Atomic host, we'd like to make Atomic the main deliverable/focus for the
Cloud Working Group and Cloud edition.


Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using 
current fedora atomic image


or considerable users using the cloud image mostly for running 
containers and going to increase in future ?



I understand that Atomic host having newer technology which is better 
for a world of containers but just want to make sure the decision is 
driven by user needs.



However, we know that Atomic doesn't fit well in the standard Fedora
six-month cycle, so we'd further propose making the two-week releases
the default deliverable - and work on appropriate testing so that users
who are using Fedora Atomic can expect that their containers and
Kubernetes orchestration won't break, but also will not need to care
whether the underlying release is based on F23, rawhide, etc.

This is going to require a lot of work to be done on testing so we can
ensure that we're not breaking anything and containers "just work" on
Atomic as users follow the updates on the 2-week cycle.

This will, I believe, need to go to FESCo and we'll have to put in some
serious cycles on documentation and work on marketing this. It's also
worth noting that this will mean very frequent releases and marketing
touchpoints as opposed to just alpha, beta, and final releases every six
months.

We also will continue to do the base cloud image - that won't go away -
but it won't be the focus of the working group or its marketing.

Finally, we also discussed that the host was only part of the larger
effort - we also need to pour some attention into improving the Docker
image, making that smaller and a better option.


+1 improving the docker image.

Thoughts, comments, flames? Did I miss anything?

(Apologies if this is not the most coherent summary - I'm typing this
from the floor of LinuxCon North America and not able to give this the
amount of revision I would usually give for something of this
importance. However, time is a factor as the decision is required to
move forward on other items.)

Thanks,

jzb


___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct


___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 07:43:28PM +0530, Aditya Patawari wrote:
> For the sake of completion, Kushal and many others pointed out, that
> we need to ensure that we clearly highlight on our downloads page and
> at other appropriate location that we still support base image. The
> move should not confuse users and should not give an impression that
> Atomic is the only cloud offering that we have.

Assuming there is serious interest in this (and it seems there is), I
think it'd be helpful to pick a small team of people specifically
interested in and responsible for the Cloud Base Image, and list their
names somewhere.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 08:04:33PM +0530, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
> Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users
> using current fedora atomic image
> or considerable users using the cloud image mostly for running
> containers and going to increase in future ?
> I understand that Atomic host having newer technology which is
> better for a world of containers but just want to make sure the
> decision is driven by user needs.

I'm at LinuxCon, which is also at the same time CloudOpen and
ContainerCon. The sample size is small and the audience skewed, but:
I've talked to several (three) people using/testing Fedora Atomic, at
least one of them fairly seriously; no one using Cloud Base image.

That's not to say that they don't exist (hi there!), but I think user
interest/excitement around Atomic is clear. Perhaps more crucially as
we make this plan, I think the people who want basic-Fedora-in-the-cloud
are less likely to be a "wedge" audience, where we can market that as
their first exposure to Fedora and from there possibly grow into more
areas. Rather, they're going to be people who already know Fedora, or
are already interested in us in general, and then are looking to have
that in a cloud environment.

For that, we need the Cloud Base to have *internal* visibility and
connections, but it doesn't need to confuse the marketing message.
Specifically, I'd like it to go in the "Other Downloads" section of
, introduced like this:


  "Looking for a plain, non-Atomic image optimized for cloud
  environments? Download Fedora Cloud Base Image: [...]"



-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Joe Brockmeier]

On 08/19/2015 10:34 AM, Lalatendu Mohanty wrote:
> 
> Does it mean that we are assuming that we have considerable users using
> current fedora atomic image

It means we are seeing more activity and excitement in this area, more
room for growth, and ultimately think it's going to be more widely used.

Matthew's slides at Flock indicated that there was some decent adoption
of Atomic but we don't have huge numbers yet. But we've only had two
releases and this is still an early area...

Best,

jzb
-- 
Joe Brockmeier | Community Team, OSAS
j...@redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [cloud] #105: Missing Cockpit RPMs in Fedora Atomic 22

[Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets]

#105: Missing Cockpit RPMs in Fedora Atomic 22
---+--
 Reporter:  jzb|   Owner:  jasonbrooks
 Type:  defect |  Status:  assigned
 Priority:  blocker|   Milestone:  Fedora 22
Component:  Docker Host Image  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  meeting|
---+--

Comment (by jasonbrooks):

 For cloud-init, the directions in the gist at
 https://gist.github.com/jasonbrooks/20cd3ebba36f851b957b work, I'm going
 to put these in a blog post and in the fedora cloud wiki.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[cloud] #115: Fedora Cloud FAD (late 2015/early 2016)

[Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets]

#115: Fedora Cloud FAD (late 2015/early 2016)
---+---
 Reporter:  dustymabe  |  Owner:  dustymabe
 Type:  task   | Status:  new
 Priority:  normal |  Milestone:  Future
Component:  Planning   |   Keywords:  meeting
---+---
 At Flock we talked about having a Fedora Activity Day for the cloud
 working group to get some work done. This ticket will serve as a stub for
 planning and coordination of this event.

 The first step is to write up a proposal and submit it for review.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Network Requirements for Fedora Cloud Images

[Dusty Mabe]

Hi All,

We are evaluating adding systemd-networkd [1] or NetworkManager to the cloud 
Base image.
In discussions we have identified a need for us to identify requirements of the 
network
management tool. We'd like to get these requirements down so we can start to 
compare 
networkd vs NM and see where we stand.

If you have any requirements please add them to the wiki page at [2]. 

Thanks,
Dusty

[1] - https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/14
[2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Network-Requirements
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [cloud] #14: Investigate systemd-networkd

[Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets]

#14: Investigate systemd-networkd
--+
 Reporter:  mattdm|   Owner:  kushal
 Type:  task  |  Status:  accepted
 Priority:  normal|   Milestone:  Fedora 21 (Alpha)
Component:  Cloud Base Image  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  meeting   |
--+

Comment (by dustymabe):

 In discussions about this we often bring up the need to have a set of
 requirements on network that the cloud images (and cloud environments)
 have. I have sent an email to the list [1] to solicit input and roshi has
 created a wiki page [2] for us to add information to.

 [1] -
 https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/2015-August/005670.html
 [2] - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Network-Requirements

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

[cloud] #116: Fedora Vagrant Boxes in Atlas

[Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets]

#116: Fedora Vagrant Boxes in Atlas
---+---
 Reporter:  dustymabe  |  Owner:  dustymabe
 Type:  task   | Status:  new
 Priority:  normal |  Milestone:  Future
Component:  ---|   Keywords:  meeting
---+---
 We need to get our boxes into atlas to make it easier for people to pull
 down our vagrant boxes. lala/KB have got a few centos boxes in there.
 Let's get Fedora in there too.

 I will work with lala to add boxes and co-maintain. We'll use this ticket
 as an update on the progress.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 12:06:34PM -0400, Joe Brockmeier wrote:
> It means we are seeing more activity and excitement in this area, more
> room for growth, and ultimately think it's going to be more widely used.
> Matthew's slides at Flock indicated that there was some decent adoption
> of Atomic but we don't have huge numbers yet. But we've only had two
> releases and this is still an early area...

qcow2 downloads are roughly half-and-half. I don't have stats for
ec2-click-to-launch (because I forgot to ask for them.) And, the
standard caveats apply: each download may correspond to one
instantiation to try it out, or none at all, or a million.

-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Steps to setup file sync using NFS and 9pfs on vagrant/libvirt

[Ratnadeep Debnath]

Hi all,

I was wondering if someone has a set of reproducible steps to setup
file sync using NFS and 9pfs in a Vagrant/libvirt box.

Related issues with NFS setup on Vagrant:
https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/110

If someone has already solved this problem, I'd like to work on top of
it, rather than starting from scratch :)

Regards,
rtnpro
-- 
Ratnadeep Debnath,
https://www.waartaa.com
GPG Fingerprint: 033C 8041 A0E9 CDBA 2E02  B785 2119 5486 F245 DFD6
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: docker-storage-setup fails on F22 cloud image

[Jason Brooks]

- Original Message -
> From: "Dusty Mabe" 
> To: cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 7:28:27 AM
> Subject: docker-storage-setup fails on F22 cloud image
> 
> 
> docker-storage-setup fails on our cloud image because there is no storage for
> it
> to configure. In my case I am just testing on openstack with no ephemeral
> disks
> attached to the instance.
> 
> All you need to do to show this is install and start docker and then
> you will see:
> 
> [root@f22 ~]# systemctl status docker-storage-setup
> ● docker-storage-setup.service - Docker Storage Setup
>Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/docker-storage-setup.service;
>disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
>Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2015-08-05 14:15:14 UTC; 4min
>3s ago
>   Process: 6951 ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker-storage-setup (code=exited,
>   status=3)
>  Main PID: 6951 (code=exited, status=3)
> 
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: WARNING: Failed to connect to
> lvmetad. Falling back to internal scanning.
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: Metadata volume
> docker-poolmeta already exists. Not creating a new one.
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: /run/lvm/lvmetad.socket:
> connect failed: No such file or directory
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: WARNING: Failed to connect to
> lvmetad. Falling back to internal scanning.
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: Please provide a volume group
> name
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: Run `lvcreate --help' for
> more information.
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: docker-storage-setup.service: main process
> exited, code=exited, status=3/NOTIMPLEMENTED
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: Failed to start Docker Storage Setup.
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: Unit docker-storage-setup.service entered
> failed state.
> Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: docker-storage-setup.service failed.
> 
> 
> Should we fix this so that there isn't a failed unit if there is no storage
> to configure?

Can we do something like -- don't try to run unless there's an uncommented
line in docker-storage-setup... ?

Jason


> 
> Dusty
> ___
> cloud mailing list
> cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
> 
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: docker-storage-setup fails on F22 cloud image

[Lalatendu Mohanty]

On 08/20/2015 12:55 AM, Jason Brooks wrote:


- Original Message -

From: "Dusty Mabe" 
To: cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2015 7:28:27 AM
Subject: docker-storage-setup fails on F22 cloud image


docker-storage-setup fails on our cloud image because there is no storage for
it
to configure. In my case I am just testing on openstack with no ephemeral
disks
attached to the instance.

All you need to do to show this is install and start docker and then
you will see:

[root@f22 ~]# systemctl status docker-storage-setup
● docker-storage-setup.service - Docker Storage Setup
Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/docker-storage-setup.service;
disabled; vendor preset: disabled)
Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Wed 2015-08-05 14:15:14 UTC; 4min
3s ago
   Process: 6951 ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker-storage-setup (code=exited,
   status=3)
  Main PID: 6951 (code=exited, status=3)

Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: WARNING: Failed to connect to
lvmetad. Falling back to internal scanning.
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: Metadata volume
docker-poolmeta already exists. Not creating a new one.
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: /run/lvm/lvmetad.socket:
connect failed: No such file or directory
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: WARNING: Failed to connect to
lvmetad. Falling back to internal scanning.
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: Please provide a volume group
name
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 docker-storage-setup[6951]: Run `lvcreate --help' for
more information.
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: docker-storage-setup.service: main process
exited, code=exited, status=3/NOTIMPLEMENTED
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: Failed to start Docker Storage Setup.
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: Unit docker-storage-setup.service entered
failed state.
Aug 05 14:15:14 f22 systemd[1]: docker-storage-setup.service failed.


Should we fix this so that there isn't a failed unit if there is no storage
to configure?

Can we do something like -- don't try to run unless there's an uncommented
line in docker-storage-setup... ?

Jason


Interestingly we are seeing something similar in CentOS based box [1] . 
But looks like fixable through the kickstart file.


[1] https://github.com/projectatomic/adb-atomic-developer-bundle/issues/69




Dusty
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct


___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct


___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [DISCUSS] Making Atomic the cloud edition

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 02:59:00PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> qcow2 downloads are roughly half-and-half. I don't have stats for
> ec2-click-to-launch (because I forgot to ask for them.) And, the

This is averaging a little more than 10 a day, combined base and
atomic. That's after spambots are filtered out. It's kind of a pain to
sort out which are atomic and which aren't, because it just has the AMI
ids - I'll look at it broken down by that later. This just shows us
when someone started the launch process, not whether they have an
actual account and do anything. It also doesn't reflect usage very
well, because for anyone serious, they'll copy the AMI ID and then use
the API to launch.


-- 
Matthew Miller

Fedora Project Leader
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct

Re: [cloud] #84: Care and Feeding, Fedora Dockerfiles

[Fedora Cloud Trac Tickets]

#84: Care and Feeding, Fedora Dockerfiles
---+
 Reporter:  mattdm |   Owner:  jzb
 Type:  task   |  Status:  assigned
 Priority:  normal |   Milestone:  Fedora 22
Component:  Collaboration & Communication  |  Resolution:
 Keywords:  meeting|
---+

Comment (by adimania):

 Replying to [comment:16 scollier]:
 >We need someone to test the conversion to DNF.  I also would like to
 bring up CI again here.  That would help immensely.
 What is the goal of CI?

 If all we want is a way to try building the image from the dockerfile and
 mark as successful if image is built, then I can write a script to look
 for Dockerfile and  do the needful. But if the idea is to check the sanity
 of the image, for example, fire up containers from the image and check if
 the image is working as '''expected''', then it can be a tough deal.

-- 
Ticket URL: 
cloud 
Fedora Cloud Working Group Ticketing System
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct