https://pivotal.io/kubo
|
Afra, Ziad <ziad.afra@...>
Hi All, seen this? what is everyone’s view?
Thanks Ziad ==============================================================================
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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 ===============================================================================
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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@...>
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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:
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
