Date   

Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

alexis richardson
 

Related to this, many FaaS proponents talk about the economics of only paying for use (function calls).  But this economic model is not limited to the serverless app frameworks eg as listed below by Brian.  Many container orchestrators could feasibly provide fine grained billing.


On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, 19:00 Brian Grant via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
I don't find the term "serverless" to be useful. It's too broad, and could encompass purely client-based computations and web hosting as well as FaaS.

I see Functions as a Service as an instance of Application Framework as a Service. Data-processing frameworks that support dynamic code loading and managed execution would also qualify. The services that we have today that support dynamically pushed code are natural evolutions of servlet engines, application frameworks, data-processing frameworks, and plugin-centric systems that have been developed over the past couple decades.

Even Functions as a Service specially addresses multiple overlapping areas:
  1. Event-driven automation. People are using FaaS for simple automation tasks. For these scenarios, the most critical determinant of utility is relevant event sources. In the FaaS space, Openwhisk is most obviously aimed at this use case. Automation systems such as StackStorm are fairly similar. The main limitation of a system like Stackstorm is that the actions are pre-packaged plugins rather than dynamically provided functions. IFTTT and Microsoft Flow address points in this spectrum, as well, and configurable actuators capable of talking to any OpenAPI-compatible API are one reasonable method of linking triggers and actions.
  2. Extension implementations. Something to receive extension web hooks from some other service without the need to operate a full-blown application deployment. The main difference with the event-driven automation use case is that some other system defines the invocation conditions.
  3. Data-driven processing and simple ETL workflows. Not unlike Bigtable coprocessors
  4. Rapid application development and deployment, especially for mobile apps, home assistants, and IoT. It's similar to website hosting, but for application frameworks / servlet engines. As with web app mashups, this model is facilitated by the availability of APIs for other services to do much of the heavy lifting. The line between this scenario and a full-blown PaaS is not about features, agility, the deployment model, or execution artifacts (most PaaSes support pushing code, and people load and run executable binaries on FaaS), but about who operates the deployed application servers.
Container-based technologies are still improving and I think you'll find that container-centric infrastructure will eventually provide most of the core infrastructure capabilities required by FaaS.

Is FaaS "cloud native"? Yes.

Does FaaS make sense in local development, on prem, hybrid and multi-cloud scenarios? Yes, for all the same reasons that Kubernetes does.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
[inlined]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Anthony Skipper
<anthony@...> wrote:
> We would like to see a separate group working on serverless as well.   At
> Galactic Fog we have had a serverless implementation on DCOS for about 6
> months, and we plan to release our Kubernetes native implementation in the
> next couple weeks in the runup to dockercon.
>
> From our perspective we would like the following things:
>
>  Agreement on marketing terms.  (Call it Serverless or Lambda, everyone
> hates FAAS, but serverless is problematic as well)

Agreement on these terms is probably a bit much to expect. For some
time I was hoping we'd settle on "Jeff". While I'm not a lawyer,
Lambda seems like the kind of thing that will turn into a trademark
issue at some point. I think we're stuck with serverless, and when
offering components that fit in a serverless stack we'll have to stick
with things like "serverless function runtime," FaaS, and similar with
a mind to two different audiences.

Audience A: Technical audience, knows serverless well, and wants to
know exactly what piece your project is providing. So you can say
things like "event router" and function runtime to explain where it
fits exactly. This audience also has some potential contributors in it
if the project is OSS.

Audience B: Thinks of serverless-the-concept as it relates to
developer experience, and would be looking to figure out what they can
do with it generally. The focus for those materials has to be on
distinguishing from plain containers, PaaS, etc more than on the
underlying thing your project is going to provide. Already it's
getting kind of muddy, since Amazon and others are rebranding other
aaS offerings as "serverless," such as DynamoDB.

>  Agreement on core capabilities, from our perspective they are:
>
> Runtime Support
> API Gateway Support
> Config / Secret Capabilities
> Security Implementation
> Logging Support
> Monitoring Support
> Performance/Scalability  Capabilities (eg. Gestalt and Fission are a couple
> order of magnitude faster than Amazon, and that changes the art of the
> possible)

I agree with these, but I'd put performance as non-core because there
are plenty of workloads where it doesn't matter all that much. Think
about the class of back-office examples that are common: transforming
streams, resizing images, propagating changes to other systems. As
long as they get done, the difference between 100ms and 1000ms can
pass unnoticed since each event is eventually spawning a new function,
and the queue/event system handles backpressure transparently.

Then there's the category of user-facing synchronous workloads that
you'd see an API Gateway used for, where perf matters and users just
abandon anything that's perceivably slow.

> None Core Capabilities
>
> Ability to inter-operate between serverless implementations (eg, migration
> between them, include up to ad back from public cloud)
> Lambda Chaining
> Data management capabilities (exposing filesystems or other services in)
> Making the implementation of the serveless solution portable across
> platforms.
> Data Layer Integration approaches.

I'd probably bump chaining up to core, since all but the very simplest
projects end up with a series of functions that either call each
other, or create events that invoke others.

> I wouldn't worry to much about the other big vendor stuff right now.
> Serverless is at such an early stage any R&D done by anyone is really
> helpful and not really competitive or problematic.   (eg Openwhisk has
> really cool ideas, and Amazon's attempts to standardize lambda portability
> show an approach that is helpful for discussion)
>
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc
> <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless
>> lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing.
>>
>> I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now.
>> Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski
>> (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has
>> been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public
>> cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] &
>> Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4]
>> (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.
>>
>> A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help
>> compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the
>> result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless
>> area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper
>> into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events,
>> making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.
>>
>> So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless
>> as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state
>> of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of
>> autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized
>> applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards
>> shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes.
>> Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers
>> live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems
>> pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more
>> standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.
>>
>> I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS
>> should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about
>> what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a
>> serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs
>> from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete,
>> and I are all here to help out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>> 1: http://fission.io/
>> 2: https://funktion.fabric8.io/
>> 3: http://blog.alexellis.io/functions-as-a-service/
>> 4: https://developer.ibm.com/openwhisk/
>> 5: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/functions/
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cncf-toc mailing list
>> cncf-toc@...
>> https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
>>
>



--
Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Ansible / Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
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: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Brian Grant
 

I don't find the term "serverless" to be useful. It's too broad, and could encompass purely client-based computations and web hosting as well as FaaS.

I see Functions as a Service as an instance of Application Framework as a Service. Data-processing frameworks that support dynamic code loading and managed execution would also qualify. The services that we have today that support dynamically pushed code are natural evolutions of servlet engines, application frameworks, data-processing frameworks, and plugin-centric systems that have been developed over the past couple decades.

Even Functions as a Service specially addresses multiple overlapping areas:
  1. Event-driven automation. People are using FaaS for simple automation tasks. For these scenarios, the most critical determinant of utility is relevant event sources. In the FaaS space, Openwhisk is most obviously aimed at this use case. Automation systems such as StackStorm are fairly similar. The main limitation of a system like Stackstorm is that the actions are pre-packaged plugins rather than dynamically provided functions. IFTTT and Microsoft Flow address points in this spectrum, as well, and configurable actuators capable of talking to any OpenAPI-compatible API are one reasonable method of linking triggers and actions.
  2. Extension implementations. Something to receive extension web hooks from some other service without the need to operate a full-blown application deployment. The main difference with the event-driven automation use case is that some other system defines the invocation conditions.
  3. Data-driven processing and simple ETL workflows. Not unlike Bigtable coprocessors
  4. Rapid application development and deployment, especially for mobile apps, home assistants, and IoT. It's similar to website hosting, but for application frameworks / servlet engines. As with web app mashups, this model is facilitated by the availability of APIs for other services to do much of the heavy lifting. The line between this scenario and a full-blown PaaS is not about features, agility, the deployment model, or execution artifacts (most PaaSes support pushing code, and people load and run executable binaries on FaaS), but about who operates the deployed application servers.
Container-based technologies are still improving and I think you'll find that container-centric infrastructure will eventually provide most of the core infrastructure capabilities required by FaaS.

Is FaaS "cloud native"? Yes.

Does FaaS make sense in local development, on prem, hybrid and multi-cloud scenarios? Yes, for all the same reasons that Kubernetes does.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
[inlined]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Anthony Skipper
<anthony@...> wrote:
> We would like to see a separate group working on serverless as well.   At
> Galactic Fog we have had a serverless implementation on DCOS for about 6
> months, and we plan to release our Kubernetes native implementation in the
> next couple weeks in the runup to dockercon.
>
> From our perspective we would like the following things:
>
>  Agreement on marketing terms.  (Call it Serverless or Lambda, everyone
> hates FAAS, but serverless is problematic as well)

Agreement on these terms is probably a bit much to expect. For some
time I was hoping we'd settle on "Jeff". While I'm not a lawyer,
Lambda seems like the kind of thing that will turn into a trademark
issue at some point. I think we're stuck with serverless, and when
offering components that fit in a serverless stack we'll have to stick
with things like "serverless function runtime," FaaS, and similar with
a mind to two different audiences.

Audience A: Technical audience, knows serverless well, and wants to
know exactly what piece your project is providing. So you can say
things like "event router" and function runtime to explain where it
fits exactly. This audience also has some potential contributors in it
if the project is OSS.

Audience B: Thinks of serverless-the-concept as it relates to
developer experience, and would be looking to figure out what they can
do with it generally. The focus for those materials has to be on
distinguishing from plain containers, PaaS, etc more than on the
underlying thing your project is going to provide. Already it's
getting kind of muddy, since Amazon and others are rebranding other
aaS offerings as "serverless," such as DynamoDB.

>  Agreement on core capabilities, from our perspective they are:
>
> Runtime Support
> API Gateway Support
> Config / Secret Capabilities
> Security Implementation
> Logging Support
> Monitoring Support
> Performance/Scalability  Capabilities (eg. Gestalt and Fission are a couple
> order of magnitude faster than Amazon, and that changes the art of the
> possible)

I agree with these, but I'd put performance as non-core because there
are plenty of workloads where it doesn't matter all that much. Think
about the class of back-office examples that are common: transforming
streams, resizing images, propagating changes to other systems. As
long as they get done, the difference between 100ms and 1000ms can
pass unnoticed since each event is eventually spawning a new function,
and the queue/event system handles backpressure transparently.

Then there's the category of user-facing synchronous workloads that
you'd see an API Gateway used for, where perf matters and users just
abandon anything that's perceivably slow.

> None Core Capabilities
>
> Ability to inter-operate between serverless implementations (eg, migration
> between them, include up to ad back from public cloud)
> Lambda Chaining
> Data management capabilities (exposing filesystems or other services in)
> Making the implementation of the serveless solution portable across
> platforms.
> Data Layer Integration approaches.

I'd probably bump chaining up to core, since all but the very simplest
projects end up with a series of functions that either call each
other, or create events that invoke others.

> I wouldn't worry to much about the other big vendor stuff right now.
> Serverless is at such an early stage any R&D done by anyone is really
> helpful and not really competitive or problematic.   (eg Openwhisk has
> really cool ideas, and Amazon's attempts to standardize lambda portability
> show an approach that is helpful for discussion)
>
>
> Regards,
> Anthony
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc
> <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless
>> lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing.
>>
>> I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now.
>> Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski
>> (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has
>> been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public
>> cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] &
>> Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4]
>> (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.
>>
>> A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help
>> compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the
>> result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless
>> area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper
>> into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events,
>> making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.
>>
>> So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless
>> as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state
>> of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of
>> autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized
>> applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards
>> shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes.
>> Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers
>> live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems
>> pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more
>> standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.
>>
>> I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS
>> should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about
>> what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a
>> serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs
>> from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete,
>> and I are all here to help out.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Ryan
>>
>>
>>
>> 1: http://fission.io/
>> 2: https://funktion.fabric8.io/
>> 3: http://blog.alexellis.io/functions-as-a-service/
>> 4: https://developer.ibm.com/openwhisk/
>> 5: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/functions/
>>
>> --
>> Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat, Inc.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> cncf-toc mailing list
>> cncf-toc@...
>> https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
>>
>



--
Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Ansible / Red Hat, Inc.
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Pini Reznik
 

Two weeks ago, we at Container Solutions, had an internal hackaton around serverless.
Tried most of the tools listed by you Ryan.
We are going to publish some blog posts about our findings later on.

We would love to see functions/serverless technologies becoming more generic and universal. Something that can be used across clouds, schedulers, IoT or anything else.

I believe independant organisation such as CNCF may contribute a lot to this subject

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:29 PM Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

+1


On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, 17:17 Mark Coleman via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off Ryan.

To provide a little more context for the rest of the TOC, I worked on the first ServerlessConf with Peter Sbarski (in CC) and Alexis asked if it would be possible to find some knowledgable Serverless folks to start a conversation here in the TOC.

This is the beginning of that conversation.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:17 PM Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. 😁

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
Pini Reznik
CTO

T. +31 (0) 6 317 99 811




Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

sebastien goasguen <sebgoa@...>
 

Hi, 

I have been lurking on this list for sometime now. Skippbox which I founded was recently acquired by Bitnami (a recent member of CNCF). At Kubecon thursday I introduced kubeless[1] which leverages k8s primitives to provide a serverless framework. We are quite excited by it as we see a potential to use our work on k8s charts to provide more complex applications.

Definitely if there was a working group on serverless being formed we would love to join, share our early ideas and learn from others.


Best,

-Sebastien

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 6:28 PM, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:

+1


On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, 17:17 Mark Coleman via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off Ryan.

To provide a little more context for the rest of the TOC, I worked on the first ServerlessConf with Peter Sbarski (in CC) and Alexis asked if it would be possible to find some knowledgable Serverless folks to start a conversation here in the TOC.

This is the beginning of that conversation.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:17 PM Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. 😁

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc




--

--

Sebastien Goasguen

http://www.skippbox.com

@skippbox

+41 79 367 38 25


Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Ryan S. Brown <ryansb@...>
 

[inlined]

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Anthony Skipper
<anthony@galacticfog.com> wrote:
We would like to see a separate group working on serverless as well. At
Galactic Fog we have had a serverless implementation on DCOS for about 6
months, and we plan to release our Kubernetes native implementation in the
next couple weeks in the runup to dockercon.

From our perspective we would like the following things:

Agreement on marketing terms. (Call it Serverless or Lambda, everyone
hates FAAS, but serverless is problematic as well)
Agreement on these terms is probably a bit much to expect. For some
time I was hoping we'd settle on "Jeff". While I'm not a lawyer,
Lambda seems like the kind of thing that will turn into a trademark
issue at some point. I think we're stuck with serverless, and when
offering components that fit in a serverless stack we'll have to stick
with things like "serverless function runtime," FaaS, and similar with
a mind to two different audiences.

Audience A: Technical audience, knows serverless well, and wants to
know exactly what piece your project is providing. So you can say
things like "event router" and function runtime to explain where it
fits exactly. This audience also has some potential contributors in it
if the project is OSS.

Audience B: Thinks of serverless-the-concept as it relates to
developer experience, and would be looking to figure out what they can
do with it generally. The focus for those materials has to be on
distinguishing from plain containers, PaaS, etc more than on the
underlying thing your project is going to provide. Already it's
getting kind of muddy, since Amazon and others are rebranding other
aaS offerings as "serverless," such as DynamoDB.

Agreement on core capabilities, from our perspective they are:

Runtime Support
API Gateway Support
Config / Secret Capabilities
Security Implementation
Logging Support
Monitoring Support
Performance/Scalability Capabilities (eg. Gestalt and Fission are a couple
order of magnitude faster than Amazon, and that changes the art of the
possible)
I agree with these, but I'd put performance as non-core because there
are plenty of workloads where it doesn't matter all that much. Think
about the class of back-office examples that are common: transforming
streams, resizing images, propagating changes to other systems. As
long as they get done, the difference between 100ms and 1000ms can
pass unnoticed since each event is eventually spawning a new function,
and the queue/event system handles backpressure transparently.

Then there's the category of user-facing synchronous workloads that
you'd see an API Gateway used for, where perf matters and users just
abandon anything that's perceivably slow.

None Core Capabilities

Ability to inter-operate between serverless implementations (eg, migration
between them, include up to ad back from public cloud)
Lambda Chaining
Data management capabilities (exposing filesystems or other services in)
Making the implementation of the serveless solution portable across
platforms.
Data Layer Integration approaches.
I'd probably bump chaining up to core, since all but the very simplest
projects end up with a series of functions that either call each
other, or create events that invoke others.

I wouldn't worry to much about the other big vendor stuff right now.
Serverless is at such an early stage any R&D done by anyone is really
helpful and not really competitive or problematic. (eg Openwhisk has
really cool ideas, and Amazon's attempts to standardize lambda portability
show an approach that is helpful for discussion)


Regards,
Anthony




On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> wrote:

Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless
lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing.

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now.
Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski
(ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has
been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public
cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] &
Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4]
(primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help
compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the
result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless
area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper
into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events,
making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless
as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state
of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of
autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized
applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards
shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes.
Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers
live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems
pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more
standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS
should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about
what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a
serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs
from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete,
and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan



1: http://fission.io/
2: https://funktion.fabric8.io/
3: http://blog.alexellis.io/functions-as-a-service/
4: https://developer.ibm.com/openwhisk/
5: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/functions/

--
Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer / Red Hat, Inc.

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


--
Ryan Brown / Senior Software Engineer, Ansible / Red Hat, Inc.


Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

alexis richardson
 

+1


On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, 17:17 Mark Coleman via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Thanks for kicking this off Ryan.

To provide a little more context for the rest of the TOC, I worked on the first ServerlessConf with Peter Sbarski (in CC) and Alexis asked if it would be possible to find some knowledgable Serverless folks to start a conversation here in the TOC.

This is the beginning of that conversation.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:17 PM Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. 😁

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Mark Coleman <mark@...>
 

Thanks for kicking this off Ryan.

To provide a little more context for the rest of the TOC, I worked on the first ServerlessConf with Peter Sbarski (in CC) and Alexis asked if it would be possible to find some knowledgable Serverless folks to start a conversation here in the TOC.

This is the beginning of that conversation.


On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 5:17 PM Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. 😁

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc
--
+31 652134960
Marketing Chair www.cncf.io


Re: The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Anthony Skipper <anthony@...>
 

We would like to see a separate group working on serverless as well.   At Galactic Fog we have had a serverless implementation on DCOS for about 6 months, and we plan to release our Kubernetes native implementation in the next couple weeks in the runup to dockercon. 

From our perspective we would like the following things: 

  1.  Agreement on marketing terms.  (Call it Serverless or Lambda, everyone hates FAAS, but serverless is problematic as well)
  2.  Agreement on core capabilities, from our perspective they are:
    1. Runtime Support
    2. API Gateway Support
    3. Config / Secret Capabilities
    4. Security Implementation
    5. Logging Support
    6. Monitoring Support
    7. Performance/Scalability  Capabilities (eg. Gestalt and Fission are a couple order of magnitude faster than Amazon, and that changes the art of the possible) 
  3. None Core Capabilities
    1. Ability to inter-operate between serverless implementations (eg, migration between them, include up to ad back from public cloud)
    2. Lambda Chaining 
    3. Data management capabilities (exposing filesystems or other services in)
    4. Making the implementation of the serveless solution portable across platforms.
    5. Data Layer Integration approaches.

I wouldn't worry to much about the other big vendor stuff right now.  Serverless is at such an early stage any R&D done by anyone is really helpful and not really competitive or problematic.   (eg Openwhisk has really cool ideas, and Amazon's attempts to standardize lambda portability show an approach that is helpful for discussion) 


Regards,

Anthony


   

On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 11:17 AM, Ryan S. Brown via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. 😁

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



The Cloud-Nativity of Serverless

Ryan S. Brown <ryansb@...>
 

Hello all,

If haven't heard Amazon&others raising a general ruckus about serverless lately, I sincerely hope your vacation to the backwoods was relaxing. 😁

I'm Ryan, and I've been interested in FaaS/serverless for a while now. Also CC'd on this message are Ben Kehoe (iRobot) and Peter Sbarski (ServerlessConf/A Cloud Guru). Lately, it seems the open-source interest has been picking up significantly in addition to all the use in the public cloud. Just to name a few FaaS/serverless provider projects: Fission[1] & Funktion[2] on Kubernetes, FaaS[3] on Swarm, and standalone OpenWhisk[4] (primarily IBM-driven). Even Microsoft's Azure Functions is OSS.

A cynical observer might say that the MS/IBM efforts are open to help compensate for them starting so late relative to Lambda, but either way the result is a lot of open or nominally open projects in the FaaS/serverless area. And with cloud providers looking to embed their various FaaS deeper into their clouds by integrating their FaaS with cloud-specific events, making their FaaS the way into customizing how their infra reacts to events.

So why am I writing this email? Well I've been thinking about serverless as the next step in "cloud native" developer tooling. Look back to the state of the art in the 00's and you'll see the beginnings of autoscaling/immutable infrastructure, then move ahead a bit to containerized applications, then container schedulers, and you can see a trend towards shorter and shorter lifespans of persistent machines/processes. Function-as-a-Service is another step in that direction where containers live for seconds rather than persistently listening. This trajectory seems pretty intuitive as a developer: as lower layers of the stack become more standard I should be able to automate/outsource management of them.

I'd like to help the TOC think about where (or whether) serverless/FaaS should fit into the CNCF's plans for the future. Do you want to talk about what serverless actually is? Figure out how various OSS fits into a serverless ecosystem? Compare how FaaS provided in the public cloud differs from what users need in a hybrid/on-prem environment? Ask away - Ben, Pete, and I are all here to help out.

Cheers,
Ryan


Re: [RESULT] rkt project accepted (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Congratulations to the rkt team :)


On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, 08:55 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9):


non-binding +1 community votes:

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome rkt to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home! 

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


Re: [RESULT] containerd project accepted (incubation)

alexis richardson
 

Great news, congratulations containerd!


On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, 08:52 Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc, <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that containerd (http://containerd.io/) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9): 


non-binding +1 community votes:
- Gianluca Arbezzano: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000732.html- George Okrokvertskhov: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000738.html

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome containerd to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719
_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc


[RESULT] rkt project accepted (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9):


non-binding +1 community votes:
- John Belmaric: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000746.html

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome rkt to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home! 

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


[RESULT] containerd project accepted (incubation)

Chris Aniszczyk
 

Hey everyone, I'm thrilled to announce that containerd (http://containerd.io/) has been accepted as a CNCF incubation level project: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/32

binding +1 TOC votes (8/9): 


non-binding +1 community votes:
- Gianluca Arbezzano: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000732.html- George Okrokvertskhov: https://lists.cncf.io/pipermail/cncf-toc/2017-March/000738.html

Thanks again to everyone who voted and lets welcome containerd to the CNCF family, we'll be working with them over the next few weeks to give them a new home!

--
Chris Aniszczyk (@cra) | +1-512-961-6719


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Solomon Hykes
 

+1


On Friday, March 24, 2017, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

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


Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)

Solomon Hykes
 

+1

Very excited to see this come together.


On Thursday, March 23, 2017, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
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/pull/32/files

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


Re: [VOTE] rkt project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

+1

On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 9:30 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
The TOC has decided to invite rkt (https://github.com/coreos/rkt) as an incubation level CNCF project, sponsored by Brian Grant from the TOC:

rkt is an application container engine developed for modern production cloud-native environments. It features a pod-native approach, a pluggable execution architecture, and a well-defined surface area that makes it ideal for integration with other systems.

Please vote (+1/0/-1) on the full project proposal located here on GitHub: https://github.com/cncf/toc/pull/33

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: [VOTE] containerd project proposal (incubation)

Brian Grant
 

+1

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 5:58 AM, Chris Aniszczyk via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
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/pull/32/files

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

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@...
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc



Re: Changing meeting?

alexis richardson
 

Aha.  Hold that thought please!


On Tue, 28 Mar 2017, 14:39 Jonathan Boulle, <jonathan.boulle@...> wrote:
My schedule has shifted slightly, so 0800PT Tuesday would work for me.

On 28 March 2017 at 13:25, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We got stuck on times of day.  Tuesday was the leading candidate, with
PT 0800, 0830, 0900 as leading slots.




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote:
> Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Changing meeting?

Jonathan Boulle <jonathan.boulle@...>
 

My schedule has shifted slightly, so 0800PT Tuesday would work for me.

On 28 March 2017 at 13:25, Alexis Richardson via cncf-toc <cncf-toc@...> wrote:
We got stuck on times of day.  Tuesday was the leading candidate, with
PT 0800, 0830, 0900 as leading slots.




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@...> wrote:
> Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Changing meeting?

alexis richardson
 

We got stuck on times of day. Tuesday was the leading candidate, with
PT 0800, 0830, 0900 as leading slots.




On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Camille Fournier via cncf-toc
<cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io> wrote:
Were we planning to change the meeting day? What happened to that?

_______________________________________________
cncf-toc mailing list
cncf-toc@lists.cncf.io
https://lists.cncf.io/mailman/listinfo/cncf-toc

6181 - 6200 of 6970