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

Re: [atomic] OpenStack Magnum concerns about Project Atomic



Interestingly I don't believe they have actually been as concerned about the docker version in use thus far.

That was the first thing that came to mind, not necessarily something I wanted to cause concern about :)

There is a proposal up to make the required tweaks to Magnum to attempt to use Fedora Atomic Host 23 image:
    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/276232/ 

That's great, and I think that's also another reason that native Ceph support will be useful (coming in F24 hopefully).   I also think the community knowing that there's another project like Magnum trying hard to rely on us as upstream is key too.

There does also seem to be an issue of it being kind of spread out

More good feedback, discoverability of the project is something that could be improved and I think echoed in Josh's comments too.

- Matt M

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 4:53 PM, Steve Gordon <sgordon redhat com> wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matt Micene" <nzwulfin gmail com>
> To: "Josh Berkus" <jberkus redhat com>
>
> > * Depending on timing age of components in Fedora Atomic leads to a need
> > for Magnum folks to rebuild image, at least until such time as more of the
> > pieces are containerized (k8s/etcd/flanel) [1].
> >
>
> CoreOS is a standalone distro, and can move at whatever speed for whatever
> component they like.  Our packages move at the speed of Fedora.  The Atomic
> members may be maintainers of a component, but if Fedora decides that, for
> example, docker 1.10 is a breaking change that needs to wait until F24,
> there's not a lot we can do about it for a F23 based Atomic Host.

Certainly, the issue for the Magnum folks though is that until the services noted (kubernetes/etc/flannel) are containerized then the path they are pushed down to replace them is to rebuild the image from scratch which comes with its own pitfalls. Interestingly I don't believe they have actually been as concerned about the docker version in use thus far.

> * Doesn't really feel like an active global community versus e.g. CoreOS.
>
> Yep, I agree.  And fairly small overall.  Part of why docs and finding
> answers online are a problem.  Depending on the problem, there's still the
> possibility of needing to find 1 specific community member to get an
> answer.  This is also why things like containerized components are just
> open PRs at this point.  (IMO)

There does also seem to be an issue of it being kind of spread out, even when posting this I wasn't sure if it belongs here or on the Fedora cloud list (and of course there are equivalent IRC channels for each too), and I just today learned there is an ask.atomicproject.io as well! Not sure what if anything can be done about this.

> the Magnum folks are primarily using the Fedora Atomic images as their base
> > but I was recently pointed to this IRC discussion where the Magnum folks
> > outlined some of their concerns resulting from interacting with the Atomic
> > images which are causing them to look elsewhere:
>
>
> I don't think anyone is specifically ignoring downstream use, but I wasn't
> aware that there *was* any downstream use.  Based on:
>
> https://lists.projectatomic.io/projectatomic-archives/atomic-devel/2015-April/msg00075.html
>
> I didn't know Magnum was back to trying Fedora Atomic.  Maybe someone else
> in the channel or on the list has some knowledge of downstreams that we
> need to make people aware of?
>
> - Matt M

The proposal to instead use a normal Fedora cloud image is mainly a result of the fact that the tools for customizing such an image are much better understood and documented. At this time though I believe the image used in the CI gate for Magnum is still one of these customized Fedora Atomic Host 21 images:

    https://fedorapeople.org/groups/magnum/

There is a proposal up to make the required tweaks to Magnum to attempt to use Fedora Atomic Host 23 image:

    https://review.openstack.org/#/c/276232/

Timing wise the reality is though that even if the above is merged for now I imagine they will eventually have a need/want to update one of kubernetes/flannel/etcd before F24 timeframe bringing them back around to the question about containerization of these pieces :).

-Steve

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Josh Berkus <jberkus redhat com> wrote:
>
> > On 02/24/2016 07:13 AM, Steve Gordon wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all,
> >>
> >> Not sure if this is the right place as the Magnum folks are primarily
> >> using the Fedora Atomic images as their base but I was recently pointed to
> >> this IRC discussion where the Magnum folks outlined some of their concerns
> >> resulting from interacting with the Atomic images which are causing them
> >> to
> >> look elsewhere:
> >>
> >
> > Seems like as good a place as any.
> >
> >
> >> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-containers/%23openstack-containers.2016-02-15.log.html
> >>
> >> This is in some ways a continuation of this earlier thread:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2016-February/thread.html#85699
> >>
> >> Trying to boil down the comments into a summary:
> >>
> >> * Depending on timing age of components in Fedora Atomic leads to a need
> >> for Magnum folks to rebuild image, at least until such time as more of the
> >> pieces are containerized (k8s/etcd/flanel) [1].
> >>
> >
> > One thing I don't get from the chat is examples.  Are they really building
> > this with a release of Kubernetes which is < 2 weeks old?  Or are our
> > packages older than that?
> >
> > * Rebuild image documentation lacks troubleshooting information (I
> >> encountered this myself, there are plenty of places for things to go off
> >> the rails in the compose and create-vm-disk steps and the tooling provides
> >> very limited error output in some cases).
> >>
> >
> > Yeah, docs are a problem.
> >
> > * Lack of clarity around if or when originally proposed build cadences
> >> will be hit for Fedora Atomic - I think this was originally proposed as
> >> 2-weekly but it's hard to tell if that has actually been hit to an
> >> outsider. To me it looks like yes [2] but do we record anywhere when a new
> >> build was pushed out to the mirrors as the current stable?
> >> * Doesn't really feel like an active global community versus e.g. CoreOS.
> >> I know this is a challenging thing to "solve" but I list it as it is part
> >> of their concern, I myself have asked a question in the #atomic IRC and it
> >> was eventually answered but only when US East coast folks were up and
> >> awake
> >> again.
> >>
> >
> > This seems to center around availability on IRC.  Part of the problem
> > there is that folks are spread out across 5-6 different channels
> > (#fedora-cloud, #nulecule, etc.).  I'll try to get people to remember to
> > also log into #atomic.
> >
> > I know this is very high level feedback in many cases and difficult to
> >> action but wanted to highlight it . Scott has already answered my query on
> >> the Fedora cloud list w.r.t. containerization plans for the services
> >> mentioned which I think would help Magnum folks a lot [1], and I see we
> >> are
> >> apparently now doing two-weekly updates to the Fedora cloud image [2]
> >> though as I mentioned it would be great if we can illustrate the history
> >> of
> >> this in terms of regular builds produced/pushed.
> >>
> >
> > I think it's pretty valid feedback and I'm glad you're relaying it to us.
> >
> >
> > --
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> > Project Atomic
> > Red Hat OSAS
> >
> >
>

--
Steve Gordon,
Sr. Technical Product Manager,
Red Hat OpenStack Platform


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