I think an email here will quickly go confused with each other replying inline. Do we have a roadmap google doc for Mesos 2.0 that people can collectively comment and propose items in it?
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Olivier Sallou <[email protected]> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > *De: *"Jay JN Guo" <[email protected]> > *À: *"user" <[email protected]>, "mesos" <[email protected]> > *Envoyé: *Vendredi 29 Juillet 2016 09:13:20 > *Objet: *[Mesos 2.0] Let's talk about the future > > Hi, > > As we are all excited about release 1.0.0, it's never too early to talk > about next big thing: Mesos 2.0.0. What major things should be done next? > > I believe there are still many features you desire in Mesos and some of > them are already under development. I'd like to collect your minds and > align the vision in this mail thread. For example, here are items on Mesos > long term roadmap: > > Pluggable Fetcher > Oversubscription for reservation: Optimistic offers > Resource Revocation > Pod support > Quota chunks > Multiple-role support for frameworks > User namespace support > > What features do you expect from this? Is it running a task/container as > a different user on a per container basis (root in container but seen as > user X on host)? (as expected in Docker in the future, seems it also need > linux kernel updates) > > > Event bus > First class resources (Cpu topology info, GPU topology info, disk speed, > etc) > > there was a quite recent proposal about location awareness (rack etc...) > which also looks interesting > > > Deprecate Docker containerizer (in favor of Unified containerizer w/ > Docker support) > > while this is long term (let's keep people time to switch to unified ;-) > ), deprecation of Docker containerizer should go with support of > equivalent port mapping over bridge functionality as currently proposed by > Docker network bridge mode. I know there is a track in JIRA for this > feature, but without it, I think that you cannot drop the Docker > containerizer. CNI plugins on mesos are important (IP per container), but > should not be mandatory (more complex to install/setup than pure mesos). > Indeed, CNI integration is not complete with Mesos or other frameworks (you > do not fully manage ports of Calico etc... via Mesos, basically you only > ask an IP for your container, all port rules are managed directly via the > tool), and current Docker bridge/user mode with Mesos is far more easy to > setup/use. > > Olivier > > > > I would appreciate it if you could either share your ideas or vote on > these items, and we will discuss it in next community sync. > > We may not have an unshakeable conclusion as container technology is > evolving at an ever faster pace, but the whole community, especially > newbies like myself, would profoundly benefit from a clear plan and > priority for next 3-6 months. > > Cheers, > /Jay > > > -- Cheers, Zhitao Li
