Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 07:51:05AM +, Chris Murphy wrote: > It seems to me the easier thing to do is tolerate baking more stuff > into the images and ISO. > OK I just rewound this in my head, and said WTS out loud. There's one cloud > atomic tree, right? So adding a bunch of hardware stuff

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

> > B. Finishing Atomic overlay support; making hardware enablement an overlay This could be highly useful for supporting things that need to be added for support of the base daemon set of an Atomic host, e.g. gluster clients and fuse for GlusterFS persistent storage support. But I think we'd

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

Matthew, On 2015-12-16 01:08, Matthew Miller wrote: On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 03:11:04PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: Should I just file bugs like that for each one of these other missing components, and set them to block a tracker bug for things to include on the ISO? In my view a baremetal

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:52:43AM +1100, Philip Rhoades wrote: >> >A. Separate hardware/virt trees; have the installer ISO point at the >> > hardware one by default (but also have the option of virt) >> >B.

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Wed, Dec 16, 2015 at 10:52:43AM +1100, Philip Rhoades wrote: > >A. Separate hardware/virt trees; have the installer ISO point at the > > hardware one by default (but also have the option of virt) > >B. Finishing Atomic overlay support; making hardware enablement an > >overlay > >C. Getting

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:55:29PM +0100, Vincent Van der Kussen wrote: > I initially wanted to use Gluster because it kind of fits the use > case. But unfortunaly the Gluster packages were not available in the > Atomic image so I used NFS for now. Would it be possible to add the > needed packages

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

Hi Matthew, Thanks for replying. I also saw the hack with privileged containers too. I was not sure how "production ready" this was and if it would become somehow a general practice. Vincent On 2015-12-15 13:36, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 08:55:29PM +0100, Vincent Van

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 03:11:04PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > Should I just file bugs like that for each one of these other missing > components, and set them to block a tracker bug for things to include > on the ISO? In my view a baremetal installation is first a server, so > it should have

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015, 5:49 PM Chris Murphy wrote: It seems to me the easier thing to do is tolerate baking more stuff into the images and ISO. OK I just rewound this in my head, and said WTS out loud. There's one cloud atomic tree, right? So adding a bunch of hardware

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 8:29 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > It's also best practices to disable the write cache on all drives used > in any kind of RAID. More important, all drives in RAID need SCT ERC set on each drive, which is also not persistent on non-enterprise drives.

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

OK at this moment I'm thinking hdparm and smartmontools just need to go on the ISO, along with iotop. While both hdparm and smartmontools appear to work OK in a container with --privileges=true, any hardware changes are not reflected in that container in a way these two programs can see.

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 12/13/2015 07:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> OK at this moment I'm thinking hdparm and smartmontools just need to >> go on the ISO, along with iotop. > > What's the usage scenario you're picturing here? This feels to me

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On 12/13/2015 07:11 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > OK at this moment I'm thinking hdparm and smartmontools just need to > go on the ISO, along with iotop. What's the usage scenario you're picturing here? This feels to me like a "pet" usage scenario where you're caring a whole lot about a single server

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > On 12/11/2015 02:23 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> These I have running in a fedora container. lspci mostly works, but >> getting full -vvnn detail requires --privileged=true. And the other >> three require it. iotop

Re: Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

On 2015-12-11 20:23, Chris Murphy wrote: Hi, Is there a wish list for things to consider adding to a future ISO? These are things not on the current ISO that often are on other baremetal installs like Workstation and Server products. I don't have enough familiarity with whether these things

Cloud Atomic ISO, missing items for baremetal usage

Hi, Is there a wish list for things to consider adding to a future ISO? These are things not on the current ISO that often are on other baremetal installs like Workstation and Server products. I don't have enough familiarity with whether these things should just be included in the base