Open Stack

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kai Qiang Wu" <wkqwu at cn.ibm.com>
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Cc: "Josh Berkus" <jberkus at redhat.com>
> 
> We found some issue about atomic host run some docker volume plugin, while
> atomic and docker volume plugin both not sure what's the root cause of
> that.
> 
> here is the link
> https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/18005#issuecomment-190215862

Thanks for highlighting this PR, I'll add it to my list.

> Also I did not find atomic image update quickly, ( but k8s and docker both
> release quickly, which can lacks of new feature applied in our
> development), I think atomic have a gap for that.

This is definitely likely to continue to be a real issue particularly w.r.t. docker itself - containerization of k8s, flannel, and etcd will alleviate at least some of the pain though as does the fact that updates are now in fact being pushed out every couple of weeks. As it stands the official Fedora Atomic images appear to actually contain equivalent or newer components than the custom builds at https://fedorapeople.org/groups/magnum/ (?), e.g.:

Fedora-Cloud-Atomic-23-20160223.x86_64.qcow2:

docker-1.9.1
flannel-0.5.4
kubernetes-1.1.0
etcd-2.2.1

fedora-21-7.qcow2:

docker-1.9.1
flannel-0.5.0
kubernetes-1.1.0
etcd-2.0.13

I digress though, as I said in the follow up either way it doesn't seem to me like only having support for one image would be a win for users - it does make sense though to expect more of the work to support each image to come from the folks interested in maintaining that support though than being spread across the entire magnum team.

Thanks,

Steve

> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Kai Qiang Wu (吴开强  Kennan）
> IBM China System and Technology Lab, Beijing
> 
> E-mail: wkqwu at cn.ibm.com
> Tel: 86-10-82451647
> Address: Building 28(Ring Building), ZhongGuanCun Software Park,
>          No.8 Dong Bei Wang West Road, Haidian District Beijing P.R.China
> 100193
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Follow your heart. You are miracle!
> 
> 
> 
> From:	Steve Gordon <sgordon at redhat.com>
> To:	Guz Egor <guz_egor at yahoo.com>, "OpenStack Development Mailing
>             List (not for usage questions)"
>             <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Cc:	Josh Berkus <jberkus at redhat.com>
> Date:	01/03/2016 08:19 pm
> Subject:	Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion	of	supporting
>             single/multiple	OS distro
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Guz Egor" <guz_egor at yahoo.com>
> > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >
> > Adrian,
> > I disagree, host OS is very important for operators because of
> integration
> > with all internal tools/repos/etc.
> > I think it make sense to limit OS support in Magnum main source. But not
> sure
> > that Fedora Atomic is right choice,first of all there is no documentation
> > about it and I don't think it's used/tested a lot by Docker/Kub/Mesos
> > community.
> 
> Project Atomic documentation for the most part lives here:
> 
>     http://www.projectatomic.io/docs/
> 
> To help us improve it, it would be useful to know what you think is
> missing. E.g. I saw recently in the IRC channel it was discussed that there
> is no documentation on (re)building the image but this is the first hit in
> a Google search for same and it seems to largely match what has been copied
> into Magnum's docs for same:
> 
> 
> http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2014/08/build-your-own-atomic-centos-or-fedora/
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that there are areas where the documentation is lacking,
> but it's difficult to resolve a claim that there is no documentation at
> all. I recently kicked off a thread over on the atomic list to try and
> relay some of the concerns that were raised on this list and in the IRC
> channel recently, it would be great if Magnum folks could chime in with
> more specifics:
> 
> 
> https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic/2016-February/thread.html#00009
> 
> 
> Separately I had asked about containerization of kubernetes/etcd/flannel
> which remains outstanding:
> 
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/XICO4NJCTPI43AWG332EIM2HNFYPZ6ON/
> 
> 
> Fedora Atomic builds do seem to be hitting their planned two weekly update
> cadence now though which may alleviate this concern at least somewhat in
> the interim:
> 
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/CW5BQS3ODAVYJGAJGAZ6UA3XQMKEISVJ/
> 
>     https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/139
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Steve
> 
> > It make sense to go with Ubuntu (I believe it's still most adopted
> > platform in all three COEs and OpenStack deployments)     and CoreOS (is
> > highly adopted/tested in Kub community and Mesosphere DCOS uses it as
> well).
> >  We can implement CoreOS support as driver and users can use it as
> reference
> > implementation.
> 
> 
> > --- Egor
> >       From: Adrian Otto <adrian.otto at rackspace.com>
> >  To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >  <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> >  Sent: Monday, February 29, 2016 10:36 AM
> >  Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [magnum] Discussion of supporting
> >  single/multiple OS distro
> >
> > Consider this: Which OS runs on the bay nodes is not important to end
> users.
> > What matters to users is the environments their containers execute in,
> which
> > has only one thing in common with the bay node OS: the kernel. The linux
> > syscall interface is stable enough that the various linux distributions
> can
> > all run concurrently in neighboring containers sharing same kernel. There
> is
> > really no material reason why the bay OS choice must match what distro
> the
> > container is based on. Although I’m persuaded by Hongbin’s concern to
> > mitigate risk of future changes WRT whatever OS distro is the prevailing
> one
> > for bay nodes, there are a few items of concern about duality I’d like to
> > zero in on:
> > 1) Participation from Magnum contributors to support the CoreOS specific
> > template features has been weak in recent months. By comparison,
> > participation relating to Fedora/Atomic have been much stronger.
> > 2) Properly testing multiple bay node OS distros (would) significantly
> > increase the run time and complexity of our functional tests.
> > 3) Having support for multiple bay node OS choices requires more
> extensive
> > documentation, and more comprehensive troubleshooting details.
> > If we proceed with just one supported disto for bay nodes, and offer
> > extensibility points to allow alternates to be used in place of it, we
> > should be able to address the risk concern of the chosen distro by
> selecting
> > an alternate when that change is needed, by using those extensibility
> > points. These include the ability to specify your own bay image, and the
> > ability to use your own associated Heat template.
> > I see value in risk mitigation, it may make sense to simplify in the
> short
> > term and address that need when it becomes necessary. My point of view
> might
> > be different if we had contributors willing and ready to address the
> variety
> > of drawbacks that accompany the strategy of supporting multiple bay node
> OS
> > choices. In absence of such a community interest, my preference is to
> > simplify to increase our velocity. This seems to me to be a relatively
> easy
> > way to reduce complexity around heat template versioning. What do you
> think?
> > Thanks,
> > Adrian
> >
> > On Feb 29, 2016, at 8:40 AM, Hongbin Lu <hongbin.lu at huawei.com> wrote:
> > Hi team,  This is a continued discussion from a review [1]. Corey O'Brien
> > suggested to have Magnum support a single OS distro (Atomic). I
> disagreed. I
> > think we should bring the discussion to here to get broader set of
> inputs.
> >    Corey O'Brien From the midcycle, we decided we weren't going to
> continue
> > to support 2 different versions of the k8s template. Instead, we were
> going
> > to maintain the Fedora Atomic version of k8s and remove the coreos
> templates
> > from the tree. I don't think we should continue to develop features for
> > coreos k8s if that is true. In addition, I don't think we should break
> the
> > coreos template by adding the trust token as a heat parameter.  Hongbin
> Lu I
> > was on the midcycle and I don't remember any decision to remove CoreOS
> > support. Why you want to remove CoreOS templates from the tree. Please
> note
> > that this is a very big decision and please discuss it with the team
> > thoughtfully and make sure everyone agree.  Corey O'Brien Removing the
> > coreos templates was a part of the COE drivers decision. Since each COE
> > driver will only support 1 distro+version+coe we discussed which ones to
> > support in tree. The decision was that instead of trying to support every
> > distro and every version for every coe, the magnum tree would only have
> > support for 1 version of 1 distro for each of the 3 COEs
> > (swarm/docker/mesos). Since we already are going to support Atomic for
> > swarm, removing coreos and keeping Atomic for kubernetes was the favored
> > choice.  Hongbin Lu Strongly disagree. It is a huge risk to support a
> single
> > distro. The selected distro could die in the future. Who knows. Why make
> > Magnum take this huge risk? Again, the decision of supporting single
> distro
> > is a very big decision. Please bring it up to the team and have it
> discuss
> > thoughtfully before making any decision. Also, Magnum doesn't have to
> > support every distro and every version for every coe, but should support
> > *more than one* popular distro for some COEs (especially for the popular
> > COEs).  Corey O'Brien The discussion at the midcycle started from the
> idea
> > of adding support for RHEL and CentOS. We all discussed and decided that
> we
> > wouldn't try to support everything in tree. Magnum would provide support
> > in-tree for 1 per COE and the COE driver interface would allow others to
> add
> > support for their preferred distro out of tree.  Hongbin Lu I agreed the
> > part that "we wouldn't try to support everything in tree". That doesn't
> > imply the decision to support single distro. Again, support single distro
> is
> > a huge risk. Why make Magnum take this huge risk?  [1]
> >  https://review.openstack.org/#/c/277284/  Best regards, Hongbin
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> >
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> __________________________________________________________________________
> > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> > Unsubscribe:
> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >
> 
> --
> Steve Gordon,
> Principal Product Manager,
> Red Hat OpenStack Platform
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 

-- 
Steve Gordon,
Principal Product Manager,
Red Hat OpenStack Platform