Re: [atomic-devel] Having abrt on Atomic Host

[Daniel Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>]

On 06/01/2017 10:45 PM, Niranjan M.R wrote:
> On 05/30/2017 09:27 AM, Dusty Mabe wrote:
> > On 05/29/2017 08:20 PM, William Brown wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2017-05-24 at 11:44 -0400, Daniel Walsh wrote:
> > > > On 05/19/2017 01:46 AM, Niranjan M.R wrote:
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > >
> > > > > I would like to know what is the status of having Abrt on Atomic Host. I see there
> > > > > was a old thread[1], but could not figure out if there was any work being done in
> > > > > that regard.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have 2 use cases here
> > > > >
> > > > > A. Having abrt collect crashes from application containers
> > > > > B. Having abrt collect crashes of process running on Atomic hosts (like docker).
> > > > >
> > > > > Any update on the above would be helpful.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2015-February/msg00026.html
> > > > abrt should be packaged as a System container.
> > > That doesn't seem right. I think that while we should have the goal to
> > > containerise things, there is a point where *too much* is reached. I
> > > think this is a good example (as is SSSD)
> > >
> > > atomic host should have "just enough" to make running containers a good
> > > system, and being able to admin them effectively, but without *over
> > > complicating* the system.
> > >
> > > I think that shoving everything (like abrt, sssd) in containers is a
> > > mistake because these are clearly in the atomic layer, and there is no
> > > benefit to the complexity of containerising them.
> > >
> > > * Do I need abrt to move at a different rate to my atomic base (no)
> > > * Does containerising it have a tangible benefit over non (no)
> > > * Does it add complexity (yes)
> > >
> > > Rather than living at extremes, we should be taking a more reasonable
> > > approach to this design I think.
> > I tend to agree here. Previously things had to go into either the base
> > atomic host or they had to go into a container. Now we have package
> > layering, so there is a middle ground.
> >
> > I say let's keep the base relatively small like what we have today.
> > For things that are low level utilities/services we can either choose to
> > include them in the base or not. If not the user still has the option
> > of layering them in using `rpm-ostree install pkg`. With the livefs
> > work that is going on upstream we might even be able to rid ourselves of
> > the dreaded reboot for package layering.
> Dusty, do you have any link of livefs work that is going on ?
>
> > For higher level services and applications container(verb) away!
> >
> > Thoughts?
> > Dusty
I still see us taking the easy way out and not helping customers third 
parties with examples of how to containerize low level applications, 
just because we can continue to do things the way we always have.

The example of sssd suffering through the pain of containerization and 
others has helped us get better at things like system containers and to 
build knowledge around best practices.  If we had just fallen back on 
traditional RPM installs we would not have gotten that knowledge or 
improved the product.