Re: Cloud image use cases
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 12:35:14PM -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: It sounds like atomic is more of a flavor than a product. There's a proposal on desktop@ for Atomic Workstation. Is the Server WG interested in an atomic variant as well? I think that's Atomic Workstation, with Atomic in quotes - unless there's a lot of change in both projects, think it'd be more confusing than not to actually call it that. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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: SCLs and Cloud Re: Cloud image use cases
On 07/10/2015 12:39 PM, Matt Micene wrote: I just know I really like SCLs, how they work, and the capabilities. It's a big differentiator for the distro at large, and could be really useful for the envisioned Cloud end-user. I don't want to step on nuanced discussions of over 18+ months though. If I'm not mistaken, though - the 'nuanced discussions' are pretty much at a standstill at this point? 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: SCLs and Cloud Re: Cloud image use cases
It appears that way. No real new info on tickets I can find. Could be some discussion in lists (Envs?) or IRC. - Matt M On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 12:39 PM, Matt Micene wrote: I just know I really like SCLs, how they work, and the capabilities. It's a big differentiator for the distro at large, and could be really useful for the envisioned Cloud end-user. I don't want to step on nuanced discussions of over 18+ months though. If I'm not mistaken, though - the 'nuanced discussions' are pretty much at a standstill at this point? Best, 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
Re: Cloud image use cases
On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms. That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing. (e.g., not containerized) -- 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 image use cases
On 07/10/2015 09:48 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 07:52:29AM -0500, Major Hayden wrote: Whenever I've spoken with customers about what they want from an OS in a virtual machine, they want it to contain a small package set that lets them run their automation on top of it (i.e. Ansible, Chef, Puppet). Removing Python from that image would be a serious curveball since most people expect to have Python available on any system running yum/dnf. Yeah, I'm willing to back down on wanting to remove Python. +1 It'd be a lot of work (rewriting dnf/whatever, maintaining both codebases, etc) for (relatively) little gain. -- Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. ___ 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 image use cases
2015-07-10 14:28 GMT+02:00 Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org: OK. So your answer to my immediate question is neutral base that people have to customize. Fair enough. Now, why would someone wish to choose a Fedora cloud image over Ubuntu or CoreOS or any of the other minimal base that you have to customize images? We should focus on reliability, availability and predictability, as we have a short-term lifecycle. = we did a great work to fix the first point, kudos to Kushal, Mike and David for that. predictability is our weak point: * not enough documentation * disruptive changes unannounced (like the ps one recently) Another weakness is that we don't provide a large panel of application stacks (and versions) unlike Ubuntu. We only provide *one* release of python2, python3, ruby, java, php (though more are available through third-party repo) etc. That's where the StackEnv WG work is important for us, as it could become an asset against our other offers. CoreOS is geared toward innovators and early adopters, our audience which are early adopters and early majority are still not ready to change to the container-based paradigm, as they're already struggling with scalability, automation etc... They've done that with kiwi for a long time. They've had JeOS around for a long time. Which is kind of my follow up point. Why would someone choose Fedora cloud? What makes it compelling? We're more aggressive in pushing latest technologies compared to Suse and we do it well. Moreover, we're a good lab to work on supporting the next EL flavors. A good mix between reliability/modernity Or, in other words, a minimal linux distro that you download and then have to spend time customizing :). yes, and here, it's my own opinion, after curating this base, providing tooling/documentation to make customization easier is the key for our success. My peers may disagree with me. That is somewhat confusing. For the F22 release, I heard much more chatter and excitement around Atomic than I did Cloud images. To the point where I thought the Atomic image _was_ the cloud image for a very long time. Hence my follow up now. That's understandable, and Atomic/Docker is clearly the exciting side from the cloud lines. We also don't spend enough efforts on marketing our cloud images, and most of ambassadors are not very cloud-aware. I'd rather say that we're more or less starting to be a mature product -though this is a constant effort- , need to focus on polishing and marketing it. H. josh ___ 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: Cloud image use cases
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running
containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With
that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and
not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms.
That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install
things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing.
(e.g., not containerized)
Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not
sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images
provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic
is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty
(for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing
behind it.
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}. How should it be positioned so the people want to
use it over those, etc. Fedora, in the Cloud space, is still behind
in market share compared to the rest of the Linux world. I'm really
curious if that can be overcome, or if instead the focus should be on
Atomic entirely because it has a better chance.
(To be fair, Workstation and Server also have the same questions to
answer in comparison to their peers. However, they have both history
and familiarity on their side. Fedora has traditionally been a
desktop OS and Server can feed off of RHEL which dominates the
enterprise space. Cloud doesn't share that luxury.)
josh
___
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 image use cases
On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running
containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With
that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and
not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms.
That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install
things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing.
(e.g., not containerized)
Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not
sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images
provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic
is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty
(for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing
behind it.
Well, I mean... it's compelling for us because we want people to have
Fedora available $all_the_places, right?
So having only Atomic means we'd basically be saying if you want to do
things in the cloud, either do them the Atomic way or use another
project, right?
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What use cases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}. How should it be positioned so the people want to
use it over those, etc. Fedora, in the Cloud space, is still behind
in market share compared to the rest of the Linux world. I'm really
curious if that can be overcome, or if instead the focus should be on
Atomic entirely because it has a better chance.
I don't think the use case for a generic, modifiable image is going away
anytime soon. As far as features go - I'm not sure there's tons of
daylight between what Ubuntu and Fedora do -- just (as you mention
below) there's more in common between two Linux distros on the desktop
than not.
Open to suggestions as to what we could do to make Fedora massively more
compelling.
I think we'd be sending the wrong message by abandoning the generic
cloud image, though.
(To be fair, Workstation and Server also have the same questions to
answer in comparison to their peers. However, they have both history
and familiarity on their side. Fedora has traditionally been a
desktop OS and Server can feed off of RHEL which dominates the
enterprise space. Cloud doesn't share that luxury.)
--
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 image use cases
2015-07-10 15:59 GMT+02:00 Ryan Brown rybr...@redhat.com: On 07/10/2015 09:48 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 07:52:29AM -0500, Major Hayden wrote: Whenever I've spoken with customers about what they want from an OS in a virtual machine, they want it to contain a small package set that lets them run their automation on top of it (i.e. Ansible, Chef, Puppet). Removing Python from that image would be a serious curveball since most people expect to have Python available on any system running yum/dnf. Yeah, I'm willing to back down on wanting to remove Python. +1 It'd be a lot of work (rewriting dnf/whatever, maintaining both codebases, etc) for (relatively) little gain. Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on storage. But I agree that we're not ready to drop python and it's *unlikely* before a long time. I also agree that it shouldn't be a high/medium priority task. As for dnf, there are discussion upstream to rewrite it in C, VMWare has also written a drop-in replacement for dnf based on hawkey/librepo that could be considered. The more problematic component is cloud-init. -- Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. ___ 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: Cloud image use cases
On 07/10/2015 08:52 AM, Major Hayden wrote: On 07/10/2015 07:28 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: OK. So your answer to my immediate question is neutral base that people have to customize. Fair enough. Now, why would someone wish to choose a Fedora cloud image over Ubuntu or CoreOS or any of the other minimal base that you have to customize images? It depends on the use case (which seems like a recursive statement in this thread). ;) Our customers (disclaimer: I work for Rackspace) usually choose the operating system for cloud instances that they're most familiar with or the ones that mesh will with their organization's strategy. Ubuntu seems to be a popular choice due to the million howto's laying around for installing services on Ubuntu. When it comes to the ultra-minimal OS choices largely intended for container platforms, like CoreOS, Atomic, or RancherOS, the customer usually has an idea of how they're planning to integrate/automate those operating systems on multiple instances. Whenever I've spoken with customers about what they want from an OS in a virtual machine, they want it to contain a small package set that lets them run their automation on top of it (i.e. Ansible, Chef, Puppet). Removing Python from that image would be a serious curveball since most people expect to have Python available on any system running yum/dnf. Well, it kind of has to be available until we make yum/dnf not need Python anymore, which sounds like *loads* of work. Personally, I like (and use) the cloud image for two use cases. 1) Openstack development with local virtualization. Having a small-footprint image that has cloud-init is awesome for testing coordination or multinode installations of databases/services. 2) Cloud infrastructure (AWS/Rackspace) a) an OS I'm familiar with b) has great docs/community c) is pretty low-resource/cheap to run d) has up-to-date stuff e) automation I've written for RHEL-derivatives just works f) works everywhere I want -- Ryan Brown / Software Engineer, Openstack / Red Hat, Inc. ___ 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 image use cases
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 07:52:29AM -0500, Major Hayden wrote: Whenever I've spoken with customers about what they want from an OS in a virtual machine, they want it to contain a small package set that lets them run their automation on top of it (i.e. Ansible, Chef, Puppet). Removing Python from that image would be a serious curveball since most people expect to have Python available on any system running yum/dnf. Yeah, I'm willing to back down on wanting to remove Python. -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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 image use cases
More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
by a large margin.
What's a data supported target for an appropriate small enough sized
Cloud image?
OK, so I got curious. This is based on AWS, US West (Oregon). I compared
current F22, Ubunutu 14.04, and openSuse 13.2. Here's the details:
Fedora 22 Base:
Default image size: 6 GB
[fedora@ip-10-0-0-176 ~]$ sudo fdisk -l
Disk /dev/xvda: 6 GiB, 6442450944 bytes, 12582912 sectors
Root filesystem: 444M used
/dev/xvda1 ext4 5.9G 444M 5.2G 8% /
Ubuntu 14.04:
Default image size: 8 GB
ubuntu@ip-10-0-0-68:~$ sudo fdisk -l
Disk /dev/xvda: 8589 MB, 8589934592 bytes
Root filesystem: 780M used
/dev/xvda1 ext4 7.8G 780M 6.6G 11% /
openSuse 13.2:
Default image size: 10 GB
ip-10-0-0-175:~ # fdisk -l
Disk /dev/hda: 10 GiB, 10737418240 bytes, 20971520 sectors
Root filesystem: 868M used
/dev/hda1 ext4 8.8G 868M 7.5G 11% /
(AND openSuse make you log in as root!! eep!)
So we are currently the smallest uploaded AMI and consuming the least
amount of available space in base, current version, community AMIs.
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com wrote:
Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
thousands dollars per month.
Agreed, that could be an issue.
More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
by a large margin.
I'd like to see data. The end user will wind up paying for all storage
attached to a running instance, not just what OS is laid down. Based on a
quick launch, the current Ubuntu 14.04 HVM community image in EC2 is based
on an 8GB image.
What's a data supported target for an appropriate small enough sized
Cloud image?
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Haïkel hgue...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
2015-07-10 17:59 GMT+02:00 Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com:
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}.
Given that logic, Fedora should stop everything but Atomic. The Cloud
image should be Fedora optimized for the cloud instance experience, just
like Workstation is Fedora optimized for the desktop user experience. It
shouldn't be massively different for Cloud than Server, b/c the use case
between Server and Cloud isn't that large.
Fedora should have a typical answer for what use cases are better than
XYZ distro, that isn't dependent on a (frankly) edge use case like a
container specific platform. Atomic is a new and interesting thing, with a
very small and specific purpose and design. That's a good thing and
shouldn't be used as an argument against the Cloud image. Or even as a
comparison.
Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on
storage.
I'm not a fan of this argument for minimizing the Cloud experience as
the real cost of magnetic storage in most cloud providers is small. If
pulling Python saves 1GB of on disk installed OS space, then users in a AWS
environment save $0.24 a month / server in the most expensive storage in
the most expensive region (Sao Paolo if you're curious). And I'm sure we
aren't shaving that much off the image. I have to think the level of
engineering required to majorly redesign things around minimization efforts
are likely mis-placed if end user cost is the main metric.
Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
thousands dollars per month.
More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
by a large margin.
That's where the StackEnv WG work is important for us, as it could
become
an asset against our other offers.
This ^^^ I'm a firm believer that the SCL work that got dropped is a
huge value when we want to talk about differentiating Fedora as a Cloud or
Server platform. The ability to cleanly separate system requirements from
end-user platforms is huge. I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and
down on getting SCLs back on track.
- Matt M
Well, SCL is another topic (to remain polite), and I'm more than happy to
let StackEnv WG
dealing with that matter.
Regards,
H.
___
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: Cloud image use cases
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 04:51:15PM +0100, Joe Brockmeier wrote: provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty (for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing behind it. Well, I mean... it's compelling for us because we want people to have Fedora available $all_the_places, right? So having only Atomic means we'd basically be saying if you want to do things in the cloud, either do them the Atomic way or use another project, right? So, another option here is to twist an early decision we made by 90°. Switch from Cloud, Server, Workstation to Atomic, Server, and Workstation (sorry, branding/design team!). Atomic can run on bare metal, and we could start making Fedora Server cloud image and push those to Amazon, etc., and this could serve as the generic building-block cloud image people want. It'd probably be bigger, but that's okay because we'd know _why_. (And I hope with the improvements we're making on size in general, it wouldn't be too much bigger.) -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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 image use cases
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running
containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With
that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and
not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms.
That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install
things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing.
(e.g., not containerized)
Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not
sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images
provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic
is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty
(for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing
behind it.
Well, I mean... it's compelling for us because we want people to have
Fedora available $all_the_places, right?
Not always. We don't want people to have Fedora on their phones. :)
So having only Atomic means we'd basically be saying if you want to do
things in the cloud, either do them the Atomic way or use another
project, right?
The perception I've seen already indicates we're going that way. If
all the hype is around containers these days, even the Fedora cloud
download page plays Atomic up. It positions Atomic as the solution
for containers and makes no mention of the fact that the base image
would work too. It just says it's flexible.
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What use cases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}. How should it be positioned so the people want to
use it over those, etc. Fedora, in the Cloud space, is still behind
in market share compared to the rest of the Linux world. I'm really
curious if that can be overcome, or if instead the focus should be on
Atomic entirely because it has a better chance.
I don't think the use case for a generic, modifiable image is going away
anytime soon. As far as features go - I'm not sure there's tons of
daylight between what Ubuntu and Fedora do -- just (as you mention
below) there's more in common between two Linux distros on the desktop
than not.
Open to suggestions as to what we could do to make Fedora massively more
compelling.
Massively? Probably nothing.
I think we'd be sending the wrong message by abandoning the generic
cloud image, though.
Sure, maybe. So instead maybe try sending just as strong of a message
for the Cloud image as is done for the Atomic image. This is really
primarily a marketing issue. The more I try and figure this all out,
the more I think Cloud is being overshadowed by Atomic and keeping
them together is detrimental in the long run.
My perspective is going to be much different from someone that lives
and breaths cloud on a daily basis. But if I'm confused, there are
other people out there wondering the same thing and clearing it up
will help more than just me.
josh
___
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 image use cases
On 07/10/2015 05:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms. That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing. (e.g., not containerized) Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty (for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing behind it. Well, I mean... it's compelling for us because we want people to have Fedora available $all_the_places, right? Not always. We don't want people to have Fedora on their phones. :) We don't? I mean, I do - that doesn't mean we're invested in that, specifically, but that'd be cool. I'd certainly buy a Fedora phone. :-) So having only Atomic means we'd basically be saying if you want to do things in the cloud, either do them the Atomic way or use another project, right? The perception I've seen already indicates we're going that way. If all the hype is around containers these days, even the Fedora cloud download page plays Atomic up. It positions Atomic as the solution for containers and makes no mention of the fact that the base image would work too. It just says it's flexible. It is. There are a number of scenarios where I can't imagine someone adopting Atomic right now. Remember, we don't even know how many people may be consuming the cloud image quietly... I think we'd be sending the wrong message by abandoning the generic cloud image, though. Sure, maybe. So instead maybe try sending just as strong of a message for the Cloud image as is done for the Atomic image. This is really primarily a marketing issue. The more I try and figure this all out, the more I think Cloud is being overshadowed by Atomic and keeping them together is detrimental in the long run. My perspective is going to be much different from someone that lives and breaths cloud on a daily basis. But if I'm confused, there are other people out there wondering the same thing and clearing it up will help more than just me. So, I guess I'm unclear on the ask here? What is the desired outcome you're looking for? Separate workgroups? A new product specifically around Atomic, or...? -- 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 image use cases
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:08 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 05:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:51 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 04:42 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms. That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing. (e.g., not containerized) Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty (for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing behind it. Well, I mean... it's compelling for us because we want people to have Fedora available $all_the_places, right? Not always. We don't want people to have Fedora on their phones. :) We don't? I mean, I do - that doesn't mean we're invested in that, specifically, but that'd be cool. I'd certainly buy a Fedora phone. :-) You would be disappointed. So having only Atomic means we'd basically be saying if you want to do things in the cloud, either do them the Atomic way or use another project, right? The perception I've seen already indicates we're going that way. If all the hype is around containers these days, even the Fedora cloud download page plays Atomic up. It positions Atomic as the solution for containers and makes no mention of the fact that the base image would work too. It just says it's flexible. It is. There are a number of scenarios where I can't imagine someone adopting Atomic right now. Remember, we don't even know how many people may be consuming the cloud image quietly... Awesome. Highlight some of those scenarios? Right now, the download page looks like this: Cloud: We make this. Atomic: USE THIS FOR CONTAINERS Atomic has a clear, highlighted usecase, to the degree that it is positioned as _the_ solution to that problem even though the base Cloud image would work just fine as well. I think we'd be sending the wrong message by abandoning the generic cloud image, though. Sure, maybe. So instead maybe try sending just as strong of a message for the Cloud image as is done for the Atomic image. This is really primarily a marketing issue. The more I try and figure this all out, the more I think Cloud is being overshadowed by Atomic and keeping them together is detrimental in the long run. My perspective is going to be much different from someone that lives and breaths cloud on a daily basis. But if I'm confused, there are other people out there wondering the same thing and clearing it up will help more than just me. So, I guess I'm unclear on the ask here? What is the desired outcome you're looking for? Separate workgroups? A new product specifically around Atomic, or...? Short term, better marketing, so that the Cloud image isn't just we make this. It's flexible and junk and stuff. Some description of use cases would be good. I mean, that is the question I asked at the start of the thread. The Cloud WG _knows_ all of this and I get the distinct impression that the expectation is everyone else in the world knows it too. Help the people like me that are perhaps just getting their feet wet know that Cloud is something worth trying. Longer term, a new product around Atomic would make a lot of sense to me, yes. Particularly as the technology grows outside the scope of cloud anyway (see the desktop list yesterday for a discussion around atomic based desktop). josh ___ 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 image use cases
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}.
Given that logic, Fedora should stop everything but Atomic. The Cloud
image should be Fedora optimized for the cloud instance experience, just
like Workstation is Fedora optimized for the desktop user experience. It
shouldn't be massively different for Cloud than Server, b/c the use case
between Server and Cloud isn't that large.
Fedora should have a typical answer for what use cases are better than
XYZ distro, that isn't dependent on a (frankly) edge use case like a
container specific platform. Atomic is a new and interesting thing, with a
very small and specific purpose and design. That's a good thing and
shouldn't be used as an argument against the Cloud image. Or even as a
comparison.
Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on
storage.
I'm not a fan of this argument for minimizing the Cloud experience as the
real cost of magnetic storage in most cloud providers is small. If
pulling Python saves 1GB of on disk installed OS space, then users in a AWS
environment save $0.24 a month / server in the most expensive storage in
the most expensive region (Sao Paolo if you're curious). And I'm sure we
aren't shaving that much off the image. I have to think the level of
engineering required to majorly redesign things around minimization efforts
are likely mis-placed if end user cost is the main metric.
That's where the StackEnv WG work is important for us, as it could become
an asset against our other offers.
This ^^^ I'm a firm believer that the SCL work that got dropped is a huge
value when we want to talk about differentiating Fedora as a Cloud or
Server platform. The ability to cleanly separate system requirements from
end-user platforms is huge. I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and
down on getting SCLs back on track.
- Matt M
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Josh Boyer jwbo...@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote:
On 07/10/2015 12:59 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
The atomic image is squarely targeted at being small, and for running
containers. It is somewhat positioned as a CoreOS solution. With
that being the case, I'm curious how the cloud image is different and
not a repetitive image simply not using the atomic mechanisms.
That's sort of a key difference -- atomic == I can't just dnf install
things. cloud == I can add on what I want the way I'm used to doing.
(e.g., not containerized)
Yes, absolutely. However, if that is the only difference then I'm not
sure how compelling it is when you compare it to all the other images
provided elsewhere that let you do that already. Conversely, atomic
is compelling _because_ of the Atomic platform. Atomic has novelty
(for now), decent technical advantages, and a lot more marketing
behind it.
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}. How should it be positioned so the people want to
use it over those, etc. Fedora, in the Cloud space, is still behind
in market share compared to the rest of the Linux world. I'm really
curious if that can be overcome, or if instead the focus should be on
Atomic entirely because it has a better chance.
(To be fair, Workstation and Server also have the same questions to
answer in comparison to their peers. However, they have both history
and familiarity on their side. Fedora has traditionally been a
desktop OS and Server can feed off of RHEL which dominates the
enterprise space. Cloud doesn't share that luxury.)
josh
___
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: Cloud image use cases
2015-07-10 17:59 GMT+02:00 Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com:
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}.
Given that logic, Fedora should stop everything but Atomic. The Cloud
image should be Fedora optimized for the cloud instance experience, just
like Workstation is Fedora optimized for the desktop user experience. It
shouldn't be massively different for Cloud than Server, b/c the use case
between Server and Cloud isn't that large.
Fedora should have a typical answer for what use cases are better than
XYZ distro, that isn't dependent on a (frankly) edge use case like a
container specific platform. Atomic is a new and interesting thing, with a
very small and specific purpose and design. That's a good thing and
shouldn't be used as an argument against the Cloud image. Or even as a
comparison.
Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on
storage.
I'm not a fan of this argument for minimizing the Cloud experience as the
real cost of magnetic storage in most cloud providers is small. If
pulling Python saves 1GB of on disk installed OS space, then users in a AWS
environment save $0.24 a month / server in the most expensive storage in
the most expensive region (Sao Paolo if you're curious). And I'm sure we
aren't shaving that much off the image. I have to think the level of
engineering required to majorly redesign things around minimization efforts
are likely mis-placed if end user cost is the main metric.
Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
thousands dollars per month.
More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
by a large margin.
That's where the StackEnv WG work is important for us, as it could become
an asset against our other offers.
This ^^^ I'm a firm believer that the SCL work that got dropped is a huge
value when we want to talk about differentiating Fedora as a Cloud or
Server platform. The ability to cleanly separate system requirements from
end-user platforms is huge. I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and
down on getting SCLs back on track.
- Matt M
Well, SCL is another topic (to remain polite), and I'm more than happy to
let StackEnv WG
dealing with that matter.
Regards,
H.
___
cloud mailing list
cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
SCLs and Cloud Re: Cloud image use cases
On 07/10/2015 04:59 PM, Matt Micene wrote: I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and down on getting SCLs back on track. What would this entail? I haven't been following that closely. I'm aware that SCLs have been... contentious. -- 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: SCLs and Cloud Re: Cloud image use cases
TBH, I'm not sure what can be done from the outside either. Not part of either the SCL team or FPC, all I see is what tickets and meeting logs I can find. So I'm not close enough to the issues either side is bringing up to understand if there's a customer argument to be made for perfect is the enemy of good in this case. I just know I really like SCLs, how they work, and the capabilities. It's a big differentiator for the distro at large, and could be really useful for the envisioned Cloud end-user. I don't want to step on nuanced discussions of over 18+ months though. - Matt M On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Joe Brockmeier j...@redhat.com wrote: On 07/10/2015 04:59 PM, Matt Micene wrote: I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and down on getting SCLs back on track. What would this entail? I haven't been following that closely. I'm aware that SCLs have been... contentious. -- 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: Cloud image use cases
Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
thousands dollars per month.
Agreed, that could be an issue.
More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
by a large margin.
I'd like to see data. The end user will wind up paying for all storage
attached to a running instance, not just what OS is laid down. Based on a
quick launch, the current Ubuntu 14.04 HVM community image in EC2 is based
on an 8GB image.
What's a data supported target for an appropriate small enough sized
Cloud image?
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Haïkel hgue...@fedoraproject.org wrote:
2015-07-10 17:59 GMT+02:00 Matt Micene nzwul...@gmail.com:
So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
other distro cloud image. What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
SuSE, whatever}.
Given that logic, Fedora should stop everything but Atomic. The Cloud
image should be Fedora optimized for the cloud instance experience, just
like Workstation is Fedora optimized for the desktop user experience. It
shouldn't be massively different for Cloud than Server, b/c the use case
between Server and Cloud isn't that large.
Fedora should have a typical answer for what use cases are better than
XYZ distro, that isn't dependent on a (frankly) edge use case like a
container specific platform. Atomic is a new and interesting thing, with a
very small and specific purpose and design. That's a good thing and
shouldn't be used as an argument against the Cloud image. Or even as a
comparison.
Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on
storage.
I'm not a fan of this argument for minimizing the Cloud experience as the
real cost of magnetic storage in most cloud providers is small. If
pulling Python saves 1GB of on disk installed OS space, then users in a AWS
environment save $0.24 a month / server in the most expensive storage in
the most expensive region (Sao Paolo if you're curious). And I'm sure we
aren't shaving that much off the image. I have to think the level of
engineering required to majorly redesign things around minimization efforts
are likely mis-placed if end user cost is the main metric.
Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
thousands dollars per month.
More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
by a large margin.
That's where the StackEnv WG work is important for us, as it could become
an asset against our other offers.
This ^^^ I'm a firm believer that the SCL work that got dropped is a
huge value when we want to talk about differentiating Fedora as a Cloud or
Server platform. The ability to cleanly separate system requirements from
end-user platforms is huge. I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and
down on getting SCLs back on track.
- Matt M
Well, SCL is another topic (to remain polite), and I'm more than happy to
let StackEnv WG
dealing with that matter.
Regards,
H.
___
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: Cloud image use cases
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 02:30:43PM -0400, Matt Micene wrote: So we are currently the smallest uploaded AMI and consuming the least amount of available space in base, current version, community AMIs. Now there's a quote. :) -- Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org 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 image use cases
Awesome, it wasn't the case a year ago. H. ___ 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 image use cases
Now we can focus on making the Docker Base image as small as possible to include heroic efforts ;-) On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Haïkel hgue...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Awesome, it wasn't the case a year ago. H. ___ 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
