On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Matthias Runge <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 18/10/13 19:59, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > * Governance plan and documents > > * A product definition -- target audience and so on > > * A list of changes from existing procedures > > * Actually doing things > ... > > I've also heard a few comments suggesting that the cloud guest should > > basically just be the server product in image form, with cloud-init. > > This is a model where cloud computing is basically seen as providing > > "servers in the sky"; I think there's a place for that, but again, I > > don't think it's what we should be aiming at. The point of having this > > product as something different is so we can actually better address the > > different needs. > > Matt, thank you for driving this further! > > During the last weekend, I was thinking about the definition of cloud > working group and what we should achieve. > > When thinking about what will be the role of images in the cloud, let's > say in 3-5 years, I believe, allmost every server image will be executed > in a virtual environment, i.e. in a cloud environment. Thus, I think, we > (as the cloud working group) should target this. Every image in the > cloud will be used as "server" image, to serve something. > Am I right in assuming that we are looking into cloud images for the short term as a starting point? I know the group says cloud but I feel like we need to look more into other spaces that directly/indirectly affect us. > > That would mean switched roles/targets between the server wg and the > cloud wg (in "their" target and in "cloud image" aim). > > So in terms of product definition: > > * we strive to provide cloud INFRASTRUCTURE to primarily execute server > images provided by the server wg, target audience will be people running > Fedora to provide infrastructure. > > Speaking of live cycles: Fedora is supported for about a year. Since > infrastructure is deployed for longer cycles, we'd need to take care, > that UPGRADING works well. This is something, we're not very good right > now (compared to others). > > * Change from existing procedures: Provide an easy install of a cloud > infrastructure on a (bare metal) system. For OpenStack, we'd already > have such a solution: packstack. Still we might need to re-validate > this, when OpenStack upstream might came up with a different solution. > I can't say, if there is something like an installer for OpenNebula or > Eukalyptus as well. > > > I totally agree on this. I can take up its work on the cloudstack platform. At least my boss allows me to abuse some of the resources we have a little. :-) > When looking at the cloud image produced mainly by Matt, it's very > useful to test and to make sure, Fedora runs well on other cloud > platforms. On the other hand, I don't see this single product as the > main outcome of this group. > > My opinion is we need to set up what our goals(both long and short term) are . We also need to have frameworks set up to support this. As long as we have this it will work out well. I am supporting your point here. :-) > > Matthias > -- > Matthias Runge <[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > cloud mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct >
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
