All, Dell has graciously offered meeting space for our “Informal BoF.” Tuesday November 14 at the Sheraton Downtown Denver, 10:45 - 11:30 MST. As mentioned earlier I will be setting up a Zoom link for folks that are not able to attend in person. Note that this is not a SC23 sanctioned/sponsored event. This is just a chance for folks interested in the future of xCAT to get together. I’m working on an agenda, but note that it’s a relatively short meeting so it’s my hope that we will be able to provide specific details on a go forward plan for continued support of xCAT. More details to follow.
Best Regards, ---- Don Avart CTO RedLine Performance Solutions, LLC (703) 634-5686 dav...@redlineperf.com > On Oct 2, 2023, at 1:59 PM, Nathan A Besaw via xCAT-user > <xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net> wrote: > > I'm not attending SC23 in person this year, but I am interested in attending > any virtual discussions about the future of xCAT. > From: Don Avart <dav...@redlineperf.com <mailto:dav...@redlineperf.com>> > Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2023 5:56 PM > To: xCAT Users Mailing list <xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net > <mailto:xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net>> > Subject: Re: [xcat-user] [External] Re: Announcement: xCAT Project > End-Of-Life planned for December 1, 2023 > > This Message Is From an External Sender > This message came from outside your organization. > Report Suspicious > <https://us-phishalarm-ewt.proofpoint.com/EWT/v1/PjiDSg!2S-hjDD-ZPkamgYVmE_LzbS184yquzlXuBYyicQMQtQxznbV0EKinRBj0yYgruCIoyBICeJoD92j_Ha4s1hnprE9NuY_clAmFxN6bOU$> > All, > Would there be interest in an unofficial “birds of a feather” type meeting > for xCAT at SC23 to discuss the future of xCAT? I may be able to line up a > conference room for folks attending to get together. If there’s interest I > assume we can also include a Zoom or Teams conference for those unable to > attend. > ---- > Don Avart > CTO > RedLine Performance Solutions, LLC > (703) 634-5686 > dav...@redlineperf.com <mailto:dav...@redlineperf.com> > >> On Sep 21, 2023, at 5:13 PM, Jarrod Johnson <jjohns...@lenovo.com >> <mailto:jjohns...@lenovo.com>> wrote: >> >> Yes, we are committed to it being open source ongoing. I won't rule out >> proprietary things built on top of it, but at least in all the ways that >> exist today and the CLI I don't imagine any changes. Currently, the GUI is >> not technically open sourced (though everyone gets the source code, but no >> redistribution). I do hope to at least open source our upcoming browser >> library that makes writing a webui with all the async behaviors a bit more >> trivial (which is what the next WebUI will be written with). >> >> Yes, non-Lenovo functions are welcome. As of 3.8.1, after testing the >> redfish update on a 'generic' openbmc system and Bluefield 3 BMC, the push >> firmware updates have been placed in generic. Currently the only non-Lenovo >> vendor specific behavior is a bit to deal with a peculiar choice with Dell >> virtual media, other things are plain redfish. A target rich area would be >> the out-of-band discovery code, since I wager all the major implementations >> are capable. I did see one OpenBMC solution that wouldn't really work, but >> I've seen other OpenBMC implementations that were workable. Most other >> stuff is at least described by standards (uefi settings, firmware updates >> for example) and vendors that bother to implement it tend to stick to the >> standard, so far. The trickiest thing is 'nodehealth', where redfish >> provides a HealthRollup, but I feel like systems rarely use it well enough. >> Maybe that's just a motivation to push vendors to use that more consistently >> if it's a problem... In any event, configbmc (bmcsetup replacement) uses >> standard IPMI, should be easier to extend than the bmcsetup script has been, >> and PXE discovery works like it can in xCAT (though without the requirement >> to actually boot a Linux anymore, discovery happens on the DHCPDISCOVER >> packet in the PXE attempt). So the 'worst case' is as far as we ever >> bothered to push xCAT, discovery wise. >> >> Governance is a matter that can be discussed. Currently I am the arbiter of >> pulls, but we can discuss other options. With xCAT when we were still tied >> to xCAT, we maintained a Lenovo branch so that I was no longer arbiter of >> master, but we still had freedom to release changes without getting them in >> master (e.g. SHA256 IPMI support was one that we could drive into Lenovo, >> but didn't work hard enough to get into master). The 'lenovobuild' branch >> in xcat-core is what I reference, all still open source, just the ability to >> snag pull requests even if they don't make it through to main branch on time >> for one of our requirements. >> >> On the last, much depends on what is seen as missing that we want to >> continue. Off the top of my head, confluent doesn't push ISC dhcp >> configuration (because it has a built in PXE server that can work with >> either an uncontrolled DHCP server or in a static only fashion) or ISC BIND >> (it still, upon request, helps make /etc/hosts files, but shrugs and >> considers dnsmasq's direct use of /etc/hosts as serviceable), or POWER >> servers or significant virtualization management. >> From: Don Avart <dav...@redlineperf.com <mailto:dav...@redlineperf.com>> >> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 1:05 PM >> To: xCAT Users Mailing list <xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net >> <mailto:xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net>> >> Subject: Re: [xcat-user] [External] Re: Announcement: xCAT Project >> End-Of-Life planned for December 1, 2023 >> >> I couldn’t agree more with Brian’s sentiment about xCAT. We, RedLine, have >> been xCAT users, integrators and occasional contributors since the end of >> IBM’s CSM. We’ve deployed it on numerous vendor platforms and it just >> works. As a small business in the greater HPC marketplace we have many >> customers that rely on xCAT and we will need to work with them to identify >> an alternative should xCAT discontinue. I’ve reached out to the IBM team as >> well as Jarrod from Lenovo and others in the community. I am very >> interested in putting together a plan that would continue to provide an open >> source option that is platform agnostic. >> >> With respect to Jarrod’s comments about using Confluent as a starting point >> for future development of xCAT, there are a number of considerations. Here >> are a few. >> Is Lenovo committed to keeping Confluent open-source >> Is Lenovo open to integration of features/capabilities of non-Lenovo vendors >> Governance. Who controls changes to the code base and future development >> directions >> Does xCAT remain it’s own project and share code with Confluent or do they >> become one project >> >> There are definitely other considerations, but I just wanted to get a few >> thoughts out there. My opinion is that Jarrod’s idea is one that should be >> given significant thought and debate. xCAT2 was, according to everything >> I’ve read, a complete rewrite of the original xCAT. Therefore, adopting >> Confluent as the next version is not a bridge too far, in my opinion. I >> also can’t speak to the original intentions of IBM when xCAT2 was released >> with respect to multi-vendor support. I can say that as a member of the >> xCAT community I would like to see the project continue as open source and >> vendor agnostic. >> >> I would really like to hear from anyone that is interested in keeping the >> project alive. I’m hopeful that we can reach a solution as a community. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> >> ---- >> Don Avart >> CTO >> RedLine Performance Solutions, LLC >> (703) 634-5686 >> dav...@redlineperf.com <mailto:dav...@redlineperf.com> >> >>> On Sep 21, 2023, at 10:59 AM, Jarrod Johnson <jjohns...@lenovo.com >>> <mailto:jjohns...@lenovo.com>> wrote: >>> >>> There are at least some options I've heard discussed, if anyone has >>> feedback: >>> -Someone to take over the xCAT 2.x codebase as-is, adding some missing >>> stuff like Ubuntu 20+ support, RHEL9, etc. I don't know that anyone has >>> volunteered to go all in on all that exactly yet. >>> >>> -Try to establish a community around confluent (potentially as 'xCAT 3'). >>> This may suggest some sort of rebranding and/or governance changes, but >>> basically starting from confluent instead of xCAT 2 for the xCAT-like >>> experience. Not precisely xCAT-like but was designed "by one of the >>> designers of xCAT 2" with a lot of sensibilities preserved. Given that >>> there's not much in the way of 'backwards compatibility', I'm cautious >>> about the 'xCAT 3' branding, and while I would be a consistent contributor >>> across xCAT 2.0 through 2.8 and then confluent, it would technically be a >>> change from an IBM to Lenovo contributions, which I could see being a >>> challenge. >>> >>> -The current default trajectory is an archived project and people having to >>> decide for themselves what to do next (only 'all-in-one' options that I >>> know to be cross-platform are Bright and Confluent, if just OS deployment, >>> then I commonly see Foreman used for diskful, with Warewulf being an option >>> for mostly diskless scenario). Obviously, I like Confluent best, but of >>> course I would. >>> >>> >>> From: Brian Joiner <martinitime1...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:martinitime1...@gmail.com>> >>> Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2023 9:57 AM >>> To: xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net >>> <mailto:xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net> <xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net >>> <mailto:xcat-user@lists.sourceforge.net>> >>> Subject: [External] Re: [xcat-user] Announcement: xCAT Project End-Of-Life >>> planned for December 1, 2023 >>> >>> This is the saddest thing I've hear in some time. I've had the chance to >>> support customers with Bright, HP cluster manager, and xCAT. xCAT was by >>> far the best. >>> >>> Thank you for all your work, I hope that a transition can happen! >>> >>> Thanks, Brian J >>> >>> >>> >>> On 9/1/23 11:49 AM, Nathan A Besaw via xCAT-user wrote: >>>> Mark Gurevich, Peter Wong, and I have been the primary xCAT maintainers >>>> for the past few years. This year, we have moved on to new roles unrelated >>>> to xCAT and can no longer continue to support the project. As a result, we >>>> plan to archive the project on December 1, 2023. xCAT 2.16.5, released on >>>> March 7, 2023, is our final planned release. >>>> >>>> We would consider transitioning responsibility for the project to a new >>>> group of maintainers if members of the xCAT community can develop a viable >>>> proposal for future maintenance. >>>> >>>> Thank you all for you support of the project over the past 20+ years. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> xCAT-user mailing list >>>> xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net> >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user >>> _______________________________________________ >>> xCAT-user mailing list >>> xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net> >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user >> >> _______________________________________________ >> xCAT-user mailing list >> xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user > > _______________________________________________ > xCAT-user mailing list > xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net <mailto:xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
_______________________________________________ xCAT-user mailing list xCAT-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xcat-user
