|
Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)
Mark Coleman <mark@...>
+1 non-binding
On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 2:10 PM Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
|
|
|
|
Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)
alexis richardson
+1
On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, 12:58 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
[VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)
The TOC has decided to invite containerd (http://containerd.io/) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC: containerd is a widely used container runtime with an emphasis on simplicity, robustness and portability. It is available as a daemon for Linux and Windows, which can manage the complete container lifecycle of its host system: image transfer and storage, container execution and supervision, and low-level storage, etc.. Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/ Remember that the TOC has binding votes only, but we do appreciate non-binding votes from the community as a sign of support! Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
FYI: <100 passes to CloudNativeCon / KubeCon EU left
We're almost sold out: Please register today and I hope to see many of you in Berlin! Thanks! Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: containerd and rkt project proposals for CNCF
Doug Davis <dug@...>
Non-binding, but +1 to both! All, please do take a look!
containerd: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32 rkt: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33 Please look them over on GitHub and raise any issues / concerns. We plan to call for an official vote by the end of this week or so for both projects. -- Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719 _______________________________________________ cncf-toc mailing list cncf-toc@... https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc_______________________________________________ cncf-toc mailing list cncf-toc@... https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
|
|
|
|
Re: RFC: containerd and rkt project proposals for CNCF
alexis richardson
All, please do take a look!
On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 20:37 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
RFC: containerd and rkt project proposals for CNCF
Hey CNCF TOC and wider community, we have two project proposals in queue: containerd: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32 Please look them over on GitHub and raise any issues / concerns. We plan to call for an official vote by the end of this week or so for both projects. Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: Followup: Today's CNCF TOC Call + Project Next Steps
Ihor Dvoretskyi
> It's important for CNCF to own and foster the foundational technology for cloud-native computing. Having both containerd and rkt in CNCF would be a great outcome for the CNCF, for Kubernetes, and for the container and cloud ecosystems. I second this. Having the container runtimes engines (containerd, rkt) together with the container cluster managing systems (Kubernetes) under a single foundation umbrella will bring the huge benefits for providing the solid end-user solutions.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 5:45 AM, Brian Grant via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
alexis richardson
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:52 PM, Anthony Skipper <anthony@...> wrote:
CF runs on a CaaS called Diego, it's just not very well known or used with non-CF systems. Kubernetes arguably supports more use cases already eg Openshift PaaS, and then others. I do think that, over time, the industry will prefer a decreasing number of 'standard layers' for the cloud native stack. It's not obvious how many can thrive at each layer, but I'd hope for more than one myself. And all this will take time.
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
Anthony Skipper <anthony@...>
>>What I did find
interesting however is that Pivotal and CloudFoundry are explicitly and
publicly supporting Kubernetes, so hopefully that means that porting
CloudFoundry apps and tools
to Kubernetes will become easier and more mainstream over time The only viable PaaS models going forward will be PaaS on top of CaaS. With CaaS you can implement nearly any type of system, with PaaS that isn't neccessarily true. The example of this is things like low latency trading systems, which you can't really implement on any existing PaaS solution, but can be made to work on a CaaS system. So the writing is on the wall that anyone doing PaaS probably needs to replatform it ontop of CaaS.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Quinton Hoole via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
Solomon Hykes <solomon.hykes@...>
Ziad, since you mentioned Docmer here is my take on your question. The type of convergence we're seeing is Kube+containerd and cloudfoundry+containerd. With the donation of containerd to CNCF underway, Docker is positioned as a direct competitor to Openshift in the enterprise container management space. Here is an example how we use it to scale Docker in swarm mode: https://blog.docker.com/2017/03/infrakit-docker-swarm-mode-fault-tolerant-self-healing-cluster/
On Friday, March 17, 2017, Afra, Ziad via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Low friction, low switching cost....interesting topics. How we manage the large "brownfield" estate is a big challenge.
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
Quinton Hoole
Regarding Kubo, it’s not immediately obvious to me how useful it is in the long term (although I must stress that I’m definitely not a Cloud Foundry expert). Reading the Kubo docs it seems that it is, in essence, two pieces:
1. A TCP routing system (load balancer) to get client traffic to Kubernetes-hosted services. 2. A VM monitoring and management system (BOSH) to keep the VM’s (that Kubernetes is running on top of) deployed, healthy and scaled correctly.
In practice #1 is typically provided by a combination of the IaaS load balancers (e.g. AWS ELB, GCE LB, OpenStack LBaaS and associated plugins, etc), and Kubernetes integration with those.
#2 is usually provided by a combination of native IaaS VM auto-scaling (e.g. AWS Auto-scaling Groups, GCE Managed Instance Groups, OpenStack Autoscaling etc), and again, Kubernetes integration with those.
Hence my above question around Kubo’s long-term usefulness.
What I did find interesting however is that Pivotal and CloudFoundry are explicitly and publicly supporting Kubernetes, so hopefully that means that porting CloudFoundry apps and tools to Kubernetes will become easier and more mainstream over time (through, for example, Cloud Foundry to Kubernetes API adaptors).
Q
Quinton Hoole Technical Vice President America Research Center 2330 Central Expressway, Santa Clara, CA 95050 Tel: 408-330-4721 Cell: 408-320-8917 Office # E2-9 Email: quinton.hoole@... ID#Q00403160
From:
<cncf-toc-bounces@...> on behalf of "Afra, Ziad via cncf-toc" <cncf-toc@...>
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
alexis richardson
which one of those is brownfield? ;-)
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:20 PM Afra, Ziad <ziad.afra@...> wrote: Low friction, low switching cost....interesting topics. How we manage the large "brownfield" estate is a big challenge.
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
Afra, Ziad <ziad.afra@...>
Low friction, low switching cost....interesting topics. How we manage the large "brownfield" estate is a big challenge.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
What I am interested in seeing is how PCF+Kube+Docker evolves and how RH OpenShift positions itself as enterprise products to manage containers.
-----Original Message-----
From: Alexis Richardson [mailto:alexis@...] Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 11:15 AM To: Afra, Ziad (MLES) Cc: cncf-toc@... Subject: Re: [cncf-toc] https://pivotal.io/kubo The lowest friction adoption path for CNCF technologies in the CF community is via add-ons, accessed via the CF service broker mechanism. Kubo is a step in that direction because existing CF users may wish to deploy Kubernetes using the same infra automation as they use for CF, ie. BOSH. This move is therefore a win win. We'll see if it gets much traction in the next few months - I hope it does. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Afra, Ziad via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Hi All, seen this? what is everyone’s view? =============================================================================== Please access the attached hyperlink for an important electronic communications disclaimer: http://www.credit-suisse.com/legal/en/disclaimer_email_ib.html ===============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Re: https://pivotal.io/kubo
alexis richardson
The lowest friction adoption path for CNCF technologies in the CF
community is via add-ons, accessed via the CF service broker mechanism. Kubo is a step in that direction because existing CF users may wish to deploy Kubernetes using the same infra automation as they use for CF, ie. BOSH. This move is therefore a win win. We'll see if it gets much traction in the next few months - I hope it does. On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:05 PM, Afra, Ziad via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote: Hi All, seen this? what is everyone’s view?
|
|
|
|
https://pivotal.io/kubo
Afra, Ziad <ziad.afra@...>
Hi All, seen this? what is everyone’s view?
Thanks Ziad ==============================================================================
|
|
|
|
Re: Heron
+Karthik to make sure he sees these emails as a chance to give feedback. If I recall from the call that was a question that BrianG may have asked. Karthik mentioned some things of why CNCF (vs other places) but I'll defer to him to answer any questions as he's the project representative.
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:00 AM, Jonathan Boulle via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
|
|
|
|
Re: Heron
Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
I would echo Brian's sentiments - I also have some concerns about Heron's cloud-native suitability and path to integration with any of the existing or proposed CNCF projects; I think it's still hard for me to understand why we're a more suitable choice than Apache. Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> schrieb am Fr., 17. März 2017, 11:56:
Moving Heron to new thread.
|
|
|
|
Heron
alexis richardson
Moving Heron to new thread.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
All - comments on Heron? I think Brian raises some good questions about alignment with our mission (below).
On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:56 AM, Quinton Hoole via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote: .. I don’t know enough about Heron and the related ecosystem to have an on that.... As for Heron, I'm not seeing the demand for Storm/Heron. For example, Google
|
|
|
|
Re: Followup: Today's CNCF TOC Call + Project Next Steps
alexis richardson
Brian Your offer is most welcome. Let's follow up with the project leads to request a document with their full proposal, and explore timing. Alexis
On Fri, 17 Mar 2017, 03:57 Quinton Hoole via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
|
|
|
Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc ---03/20/2017 02:47:57 PM---All, please do take a look! On Mon, 20 Mar 2017, 20:37 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <
