On Thu, Nov 2, 2017 at 12:44 AM, Enrico Olivelli <eolive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2017-11-02 8:34 GMT+01:00 Sijie Guo <guosi...@gmail.com>: > > > Hi all, > > > > in apache/bookkeeper#499 <https://github.com/apache/ > bookkeeper/issues/499 > > >, > > we moved packaging distribution pkgs from bookkeeper-server to > > bookkeeper-dist and included all the plugins. so people can choose which > > stats provider and which http server binding to use. It provides the > > flexibility for users, but it also increases the size of the binary > > packages. > > > > I am wondering if we should consider providing another distribution > package > > -- we can call it `standard` -- which it only includes one stats provider > > (e.g. prometheus) and one http server (e.g. vertx). so in the docker > > images, we can provide two images, one includes everything, the other > > includes one default plugin. so user can choose which one to use and it > can > > be a good tradeoff between flexibility and package size. > > > > Any thoughts? > > > > It would be good to have an idea of how users run Bookies. > It is not very clear to me in the BookKeeper ecosystem how Bookies are > deployed usually. > I think there are two things to distinguish, packaging and deployment. packaging are about to include the dependencies and offer scripts for running services, deployment is actually more about how to distribute the package and run services using the scripts to run bookie services. As a community, we can't control how people wants to deploy, we only offer recommendations and tutorials on how to deploy in different environments. And the deployment process is usually customized in different companies with different deployment mechanisms in different environments. Packages (both binary package and docker images) are things we distributed for each release. Essentially what we need to provide is a package (it can be a gzip, bz2 tar ball or a docker image), that includes all the necessary assets and scripts for running bookies. How to deploy is tight with the deployment system and it is up to how the deployment method uses the offer package. For sure, people can include bookkeeper dependency and tightly integrate their tooling chain and deployment method, that's out of the scope of release packages. > I have very limited knowledge, as far as I know we have: > - run bookie using scripts provided in the distribution package. Does > anyone really uses it ? Twitter, Salesforce, custom scripts ? - Docker, Kubernetes...... > - Mesos/Aurora ? still Docker ? > - Embedded bookies, packaged together with other applications (this is my > case) > I don't know best practices for Pulsar, DL, Pravega....do users run Bookie > or use scripts provided by the "main" technology ? > For my products (non opensource) we provide custom scripts and we package > the bookie tailoring it to our needs There is only two categories - 1) applications use a package (the package can be the official binary tar ball or docker images, or a customized package) to install a bookkeeper cluster; 2) applications take bookkeeper as a library and integrate with their own software. The release packages are only for category 1). I don't think we are responsible for packaging for category 2). > > I think that for the Docker world it is good to do as you Sijie are > proposing, two packages: > - uber package > - small package, but working > so I am +1 with your idea of having 2 images > Just to clarify, I don't mean docker image only. It is more a question on providing the tar balls -- when people download the tarballs, what are available for users to run a bookie. > > > Enrico > > > > > > > - Sijie > > >
