[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

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

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. 


William Brown
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Australia/Brisbane

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]