> On Jul 25, 2019, at 4:19 AM, Aleksandar Lazic 
> <openshift-li...@me2digital.com> wrote:
> HI.
>> Am 25.07.2019 um 06:52 schrieb Michael Gugino:
>> I think FCoS could be a mutable detail.  To start with, support for
>> plain-old-fedora would be helpful to make the platform more portable,
>> particularly the MCO and machine-api.  If I had to state a goal, it
>> would be "Bring OKD to the largest possible range of linux distros to
>> become the defacto implementation of kubernetes."
> I agree here with Michael. As FCoS or in general CoS looks technical a good 
> idea
> but it limits the flexibility of possible solutions.
> For example when you need to change some system settings then you will need to
> create a new OS Image, this is not very usable in some environments.

I think something we haven’t emphasized enough is that openshift 4 is
very heavily structured around changing the cost and mental model
around this.  The goal was and is to make these sorts of things
unnecessary.  Changing machine settings by building golden images is
already the “wrong” (expensive and error prone) pattern - instead, it
should be easy to reconfigure machines or to launch new containers to
run software on those machines.  There may be two factors here at

1. Openshift 4 isn’t flexible in the ways people want (Ie you want to
add an rpm to the OS to get a kernel module, or you want to ship a
complex set of config and managing things with mcd looks too hard)
2. You want to build and maintain these things yourself, so the “just
works” mindset doesn’t appeal.

The initial doc alluded to the DIY / bucket of parts use case (I can
assemble this on my own but slightly differently) - maybe we can go
further now and describe the goal / use case as:

I want to be able to compose my own Kubernetes distribution, and I’m
willing to give up continuous automatic updates to gain flexibility in
picking my own software

Does that sound like it captures your request?

Note that a key reason why the OS is integrated is so that we can keep
machines up to date and do rolling control plane upgrades with no
risk.  If you take the OS out of the equation the risk goes up
substantially, but if you’re willing to give that up then yes, you
could build an OKD that doesn’t tie to the OS.  This trade off is an
important one for folks to discuss.  I’d been assuming that people
*want* the automatic and safe upgrades, but maybe that’s a bad

What would you be willing to give up?

> It would be nice to have the good old option to use the ansible installer to
> install OKD/Openshift on other Linux distribution where ansible is able to 
> run.
>> Also, it would be helpful (as previously stated) to build communities
>> around some of our components that might not have a place in the
>> official kubernetes, but are valuable downstream components
>> nevertheless.
>> Anyway, I'm just throwing some ideas out there, I wouldn't consider my
>> statements as advocating strongly in any direction.  Surely FCoS is
>> the natural fit, but I think considering other distros merits
>> discussion.
> +1
> Regards
> Aleks
>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 9:23 PM Clayton Coleman <ccole...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> On Jul 24, 2019, at 9:14 PM, Michael Gugino <mgug...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> I think what I'm looking for is more 'modular' rather than DIY.  CVO
>>>> would need to be adapted to separate container payload from host
>>>> software (or use something else), and maintaining cross-distro
>>>> machine-configs might prove tedious, but for the most part, rest of
>>>> everything from the k8s bins up, should be more or less the same.
>>>> MCD is good software, but there's not really much going on there that
>>>> can't be ported to any other OS.  MCD downloads a payload, extracts
>>>> files, rebases ostree, reboots host.  You can do all of those steps
>>>> except 'rebases ostree' on any distro.  And instead of 'rebases
>>>> ostree', we could pull down a container that acts as a local repo that
>>>> contains all the bits you need to upgrade your host across releases.
>>>> Users could do things to break this workflow, but it should otherwise
>>>> work if they aren't fiddling with the hosts.  The MCD payload happens
>>>> to embed an ignition payload, but it doesn't actually run ignition,
>>>> just utilizes the file format.
>>>> From my viewpoint, there's nothing particularly special about ignition
>>>> in our current process either.  I had the entire OCP 4 stack running
>>>> on RHEL using the same exact ignition payload, a minimal amount of
>>>> ansible (which could have been replaced by cloud-init userdata), and a
>>>> small python library to parse the ignition files.  I was also building
>>>> repo containers for 3.10 and 3.11 for Fedora.  Not to say the
>>>> OpenShift 4 experience isn't great, because it is.  RHEL CoreOS + OCP
>>>> 4 came together quite nicely.
>>>> I'm all for 'not managing machines' but I'm not sure it has to look
>>>> exactly like OCP.  Seems the OCP installer and CVO could be
>>>> adapted/replaced with something else, MCD adapted, pretty much
>>>> everything else works the same.
>>> Sure - why?  As in, what do you want to do?  What distro do you want
>>> to use instead of fcos?  What goals / outcomes do you want out of the
>>> ability to do whatever?  Ie the previous suggestion (the auto updating
>>> kube distro) has the concrete goal of “don’t worry about security /
>>> updates / nodes and still be able to run containers”, and fcos is a
>>> detail, even if it’s an important one.  How would you pitch the
>>> alternative?
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:05 PM Clayton Coleman <ccole...@redhat.com> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 10:40 AM Michael Gugino <mgug...@redhat.com> 
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I tried FCoS prior to the release by using the assembler on github.
>>>>>> Too much secret sauce in how to actually construct an image.  I
>>>>>> thought atomic was much more polished, not really sure what the
>>>>>> value-add of ignition is in this usecase.  Just give me a way to build
>>>>>> simple image pipelines and I don't need ignition.  To that end, there
>>>>>> should be an okd 'spin' of FCoS IMO.  Atomic was dead simple to build
>>>>>> ostree repos for.  I'd prefer to have ignition be opt-in.  Since we're
>>>>>> supporting the mcd-once-from to parse ignition on RHEL, we don't need
>>>>>> ignition to actually install okd.  To me, it seems FCoS was created
>>>>>> just to have a more open version of RHEL CoreOS, and I'm not sure FCoS
>>>>>> actually solves anyone's needs relative to atomic.  It feels like we
>>>>>> jumped the shark on this one.
>>>>> That’s feedback that’s probably something you should share in the fcos 
>>>>> forums as well.  I will say that I find the OCP + RHEL experience 
>>>>> unsatisfying and doesn't truly live up to what RHCOS+OCP can do (since it 
>>>>> lacks the key features like ignition and immutable hosts).  Are you 
>>>>> saying you'd prefer to have more of a "DIY kube bistro" than the "highly 
>>>>> opinionated, totally integrated OKD" proposal?  I think that's a good 
>>>>> question the community should get a chance to weigh in on (in my original 
>>>>> email that was the implicit question - do you want something that looks 
>>>>> like OCP4, or something that is completely different).
>>>>>> I'd like to see OKD be distro-independent.  Obviously Fedora should be
>>>>>> our primary target (I'd argue Fedora over FCoS), but I think it should
>>>>>> be true upstream software in the sense that apache2 http server is
>>>>>> upstream and not distro specific.  To this end, perhaps it makes sense
>>>>>> to consume k/k instead of openshift/origin for okd.  OKD should be
>>>>>> free to do wild and crazy things independently of the enterprise
>>>>>> product.  Perhaps there's a usecase for treating k/k vs
>>>>>> openshift/origin as a swappable base layer.
>>>>> That’s even more dramatic a change from OKD even as it was in 3.x.  I’d 
>>>>> be happy to see people excited about reusing cvo / mcd and be able to mix 
>>>>> and match, but most of the things here would be a huge investment to 
>>>>> build.  In my original email I might call this the “I want to build my 
>>>>> own distro" - if that's what people want to build, I think we can do 
>>>>> things to enable it.  But it would probably not be "openshift" in the 
>>>>> same way.
>>>>>> It would be nice to have a more native kubernetes place to develop our
>>>>>> components against so we can upstream them, or otherwise just build a
>>>>>> solid community around how we think kubernetes should be deployed and
>>>>>> consumed.  Similar to how Fedora has a package repository, we should
>>>>>> have a Kubernetes component repository (I realize operatorhub fulfulls
>>>>>> some of this, but I'm talking about a place for OLM and things like
>>>>>> MCD to live).
>>>>> MCD is really tied to the OS.  The idea of a generic MCD seems like it 
>>>>> loses the value of MCD being specific to an OS.
>>>>> I do think there are two types of components we have - things designed to 
>>>>> work well with kube, and things designed to work well with "openshift the 
>>>>> distro".  The former can be developed against Kube (like operator hub / 
>>>>> olm) but the latter doesn't really make sense to develop against unless 
>>>>> it matches what is being built.  In that vein, OKD4 looking not like OCP4 
>>>>> wouldn't benefit you or the components.
>>>>>> I think we could integrate with existing package managers via a
>>>>>> 'repo-in-a-container' type strategy for those not using ostree.
>>>>> A big part of openshift 4 is "we're tired of managing machines".  It 
>>>>> sounds like you are arguing for "let people do whatever", which is 
>>>>> definitely valid (but doesn't sound like openshift 4).
>>>>>> As far as slack vs IRC, I vote IRC or any free software solution (but
>>>>>> my preference is IRC because it's simple and I like it).
>>>> --
>>>> Michael Gugino
>>>> Senior Software Engineer - OpenShift
>>>> mgug...@redhat.com
>>>> 540-846-0304

dev mailing list

Reply via email to