We have discussed this topic during today's community meeting and it
feels less disruptive to proceed with unified container support
development in parallel to the existing Aurora Docker implementation.
Once Mesos unified container design reaches proper level of maturity
we will consider retiring
t;> OS used within containers.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, while very interesting for the future, it is not a
>> pressing
>>>> issue for us right now. In addition, as we are not using docker,
>> backward
>>>> compatibility is not a blocker for
gt; > Hi Maxim,
> > > >
> > > > we would be interested in the unified container support as well. It
> > would
> > > > allow us to independently update the major version of the slave OS
> and
> > > the
> > > > OS used within cont
On Thursday, October 22, 2015, Steve Niemitz
wrote:
> >
> > because docker's runtime isolation (e.g., cpu, memory, etc) is not
> > compatible with Mesos's runtime isolation
>
>
> I find that kind of an odd statement, as they both just use cgroups to
> achieve said
I'm in fact more familiar with them than I'd like, as I've had to modify
the docker containerizer to support both CFS and correct memory and CPU
stats. ;)
On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> On Thursday, October 22, 2015, Steve Niemitz
Ah excellent. I was a bit confused as I know the Tellapart team, which I
believe you're a member of, really knows this stack really well. Hopefully
you sent that back upstream :)
I still see more outages due to weird docker bugs than virtually anything
else and am pretty excited to see this
us.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Stephan
> >
> > From: Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:23 PM
> > To: dev@aurora.apache.org
> > Subject: Unified container suppo
bility is not a blocker for us.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > Stephan
> > >
> > > From: Maxim Khutornenko <ma...@apache.org>
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:23 PM
> > >