Re: netdata shitshow


Roger Klorese
 

+1 non-binding. Our company has deployed harbor in the prod environment, the number of kubernetes nodes is 200+, the number of applications is 400+, the number of the image is 4000+, and the cluster size is growing rapidly.
github.com



Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:48 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow
 

Perhaps you’re thinking further kubernetes integrations which was in the slide deck for the TOC presentation. That preso was on 2018-06-19 while the links I provided for an early tagged release showing containerized builds is from 2016-12-06.

 

Mark

 

From: Roger Klorese <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 12:37 PM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>, Mark Peek <markpeek@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Wasn't Harbor originally delivered ONLY as a virtual appliance, with the containers coming later? The discussion of whether to accept it as a CNCF project received pushback at the time based specifically on that fact.

 

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave S, Suite 1000
Seattle WA 98104
(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


From: cncf-toc@... <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of Mark Peek via Lists.Cncf.Io <markpeek=vmware.com@...>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 12:18 PM
To: Matt Farina; Roger Klorese
Cc: cncf-toc@...
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

Roger,

I get your point but disagree with your example.

 

Harbor is delivered as a set of containers and I would consider it cloud native. For convenience it is also delivered as a virtual appliance.

 

Looking back to version 0.5.0 (Dec 6, 2016) we see it uses docker/docker-compose for running on Linux:

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/tree/release-0.5.0

https://github.com/goharbor/harbor/releases/tag/0.5.0

 

 

Mark

 

From: <cncf-toc@...> on behalf of "Roger Klorese via Lists.Cncf.Io" <roger.klorese=suse.com@...>
Reply-To: "roger.klorese@..." <roger.klorese@...>
Date: Friday, June 7, 2019 at 11:10 AM
To: Matt Farina <matt@...>
Cc: "cncf-toc@..." <cncf-toc@...>
Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] netdata shitshow

 

If I recall correctly, for instance, when Harbor was added, it was a valuable component for cloud-native deployment - but it was not itself cloud-native, since it was delivered as a virtual appliance...

Roger B.A. Klorese
Senior Product Manager
SUSE
705 5th Ave SSuite 1000
Seattle WA 98104

(P)+1 206.217.7432
(M)+1 425.444.5493
roger.klorese@...
Schedule a meeting: https://doodle.com/RogerKlorese
GPG Key: D567 F186 A6AE D244 067E  95E4 E67D 019F 0670 D9CC


On Jun 7, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Matt Farina <matt@...> wrote:

Alexis,

 

Maybe you can help me with this. The CNCF has a Cloud Native definition. A lot of things fit this bill in one way, shape, or form. Far more than are in the landscape. What is missing that the landscape should account for and why?

 

If something stricter is to be used it needs to be clearly documented and consistently applied. This allows for things to be fair and to keep it outside the realm of tribal knowledge.

 

-- 
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

 

 

On Jun 7, 2019, at 1:35 PM, Alexis Richardson <alexis@...> wrote:

 

Matt

OK, but:

We are doing a disservice to new users by publishing a "cloud native"
landscape, that contains non-cloud-native projects.  If we don't have
an opinion about what is cloud native and what is not, then what is
our purpose?

Other than I fully agree with you.

a



On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 6:01 PM Matthew Farina <matt@...> wrote:


When we first made the landscape, it (1) had a particular structure
and (2) attempted to show what projects are cloud native and where
they live in that structure.

Now, it has everything in it.  So it is meaningless.


I have to respectfully disagree that it’s meaningless.

Consider the case where someone is new to the space or a category in it. Where does one start to find the options in the space? Search engines are pretty limiting. Especially since this packed space has more than 10 options in each area.

New people to the space should be a high priority because there are more people we would like to come into the space than are already here today. I find the landscape helps them discover what’s in the space. It’s an onboarding tool. We need more of those.

Of course there are questions about netdata. Is netdata a competitor to Prometheus? As an outside observer, it looks like it can monitory lots of things including containers. With Prometheus I can monitory containers, microservices, and even VMs. Again, this is just me as an external observer.

Should people be able to discover the monitoring tools that can monitor containers in the landscape? That’s the question I would look at. Or, is there some other criteria? If so, it would be worth sharing so it’s not tribal knowledge locked in the minds of a few people.

--
Matt Farina
mattfarina.com

 

Join cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io to automatically receive all group messages.