Thanks @zhitao I create a document at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1F-Vb6fG4MaDgd82fxsRQDaEndlpFxQN-pBXkw-Q8yDA/edit?usp=sharing
On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 1:17 AM, Zhitao Li <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Best Regards, Haosdent Huang
