cloud February 2014

cloud@lists.fedoraproject.org

13 participants
24 discussions

Short links to Fedora Cloud Images
by Matthew Miller 17 Dec '14

17 Dec '14

These links all work now: http://cloud.fedoraproject.org/fedora-19.x86_64.qcow2 http://cloud.fedoraproject.org/fedora-19.i386.qcow2 http://cloud.fedoraproject.org/fedora-latest.i386.qcow2 http://cloud.fedoraproject.org/fedora-latest.x86_64.qcow2 (They will redirect to a mirror link provided by mirrormanager.) -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

5 6

Google Compute Engine Fedora Images (status update)
by Vaidas Jablonskis 05 Mar '14

05 Mar '14

Hi People, I am pretty new to contributing to Fedora, especially the cloud group. I have mentioned a few times on IRC (nickname: zooz) that I have started working on GCE cloud image. So I thought I will give you an update on my progress so other people can jump in or help me to figure out the process. So far so good, GCE image does not seem to look much different that already existing OpenStack/EC2 images. - kickstart files for appliance-creator: https://github.com/vaijab/fedora-gce-image - gcimagebundle spec/srpm/copr: https://github.com/vaijab/gcimagebundle-rpm - google-compute-daemon spec/srpm/copr: https://github.com/vaijab/google-compute-daemon-rpm I understand that you guys might not want to use google provided daemons for managing ssh keys, users and forwarded IP addresses, but I thought I will package it up just in case. Current blockers: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1055181 but they accepted my patch and it's been submitted to updates-testing, so it should be fine soon. So with what I currently have, I am able to build an image without any issues which runs on GCE perfectly. If anyone could have a quick poke at my RPM spec files and let me know if there are any major issues with them before I submit them for a review for the first time :-) Also if anyone wants to sponsor my fedora packager membership I'd really appreciate that. So what are the next steps? How do we actually start a process of getting appliance KS files upstream? Any pointers and feedback is welcome. If anyone wants to jump in and help - please do so! Thanks, Vaidas -- Vaidas Jablonskis

6 17

changes list for fesco (Cloud WG members -- action needed!)
by Matthew Miller 04 Mar '14

04 Mar '14

Hi everyone. Joe and I did a lot of work on the cloud changelist, starting from the brainstorming list that Sandro put into place. Please take a look at <https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist>. The next steps are: 1. Many of the changes and dependencies are missing owners. It would be nice to fill that in, although we can leave some of them TBD if need be. 2. Please make sure that we aren't missing anything crucial. Discuss here if it looks like something is missing. 3. There's some room to discuss the priorities, although I do think we have it about right. 4. Do feel free to make any minor cleanup or enhancements. Even spelling fixes and the like. If it seems big, mention it here, or otherwise just do it. 5. I propose that we accept this list by lazy consensus -- that is, if we don't get any -1s from WG members by 23:00 UTC on Monday, we'll consider it accepted. I don't think there is anything controversial in here. Thanks everyone! -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

4 7

REMINDER: Friday Activity Day for Cloud Changes List (28 February 2014 @ 17:00 UTC)
by Joe Brockmeier 28 Feb '14

28 Feb '14

(This starts in about 45 minutes...) Howdy all, We have a deadline looming for 3 March 2014 to get our technical specification / changes list together for FESCo. Current brainstorming: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist We need to organize, prioritize, and format as actual changes for FESCo. Let's start at the usual meeting time (17:00 UTC) and go until we're done or can't go any more. We can do this in the #fedora-cloud channel on Freenode. Any questions, comments, flames? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/

1 0

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Matthew Miller 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 07:43:53AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > I realize that XFS is a difficult pill to swallow for /boot, due to > your use of syslinux instead of GRUB2. If the Server and Workstation > groups decide to settle on both using XFS-on-LVM for the main > partitions, we could *probably* also compromise on using ext4 for just > /boot. Right now, the cloud images are unpartitioned. In some cloud providers (e.g., the 800lb gorilla of Amazon EC2) we in fact use the kernel that assumes the image is just one partition, not a disk image. We could change that (and I kind of want to anyway, for consistency), but it would be... change. Having a separate /boot is also problematic (read: wasteful) for ultra-small images, and adds complexity a lot of users are going to frown at. So..... if by "/boot" you mean "the partition that /boot happens to be on, even if it is /", then I think we're good. Otherwise we will have to figure something else out. -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

3 4

Friday Activity Day for Cloud Changes List (28 February 2014 @ 17:00 UTC)
by Joe Brockmeier 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

Howdy all, We have a deadline looming for 3 March 2014 to get our technical specification / changes list together for FESCo. Current brainstorming: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist We need to organize, prioritize, and format as actual changes for FESCo. Let's start at the usual meeting time (17:00 UTC) and go until we're done or can't go any more. We can do this in the #fedora-cloud channel on Freenode. Any questions, comments, flames? Best, jzb -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/

2 1

Fwd: PRDs/Tech Specs to formal Change Proposals and Change submission deadline
by Joe Brockmeier 27 Feb '14

27 Feb '14

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: PRDs/Tech Specs to formal Change Proposals and Change submission deadline Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 05:32:14 -0500 (EST) From: Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com> Reply-To: server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To: devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org, Discussions about development for the Fedora desktop <desktop(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>, Fedora Environment and Stacks Working Group mailing list <env-and-stacks(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> Hi, at yesterday's FESCo meeting, it was agreed on setting deadlines for Change submission for Fedora 21 [1] and to process PRDs into Change proposals. "AGREED: Fedora Changes Process submission deadline for system-wide changes is April 7th. Deadline for true standalone changes will be sometime later than that. Changes to how fedora is produced for fedora.next are still due on March 3rd. (+7,0,0) (nirik, 18:29:42)" Current deadlines: * March 3rd: Technical Specifications for products & and changes needed for products and deliverables --- very soon! * April 7th: System Wide Changes submission deadline Working Groups teams, please, try to "transform" required changes for your products from PRDs/Technical Specifications into standalone Change proposals (between March 3rd and April 7th). It will help us to scope the release. Also all changes would be trackable the standard way we do it and it's going to help transparency (as Change announcements are being to be part of the process). Self Contained Changes submission deadline will be set later, after the System Wide deadline. If you expect your proposed Self Contained Change will be on the edge and could be escalated to the System Wide, please try to submit it as early as possible too. As some Fedora.next details will be clarified later in the process, System Wide Changes submitted after the deadline will be approved case by case, even after submission deadline. For the details about the Change process, see my previous email to the devel announce list [2]. Thank you for your help with Change process and let me know in case of any questions. Jaroslav [1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1178 [2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2014-February/0013… _______________________________________________ server mailing list server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/

1 0

Minutes from today's (26 February 2014) Cloud WG Meeting
by Joe Brockmeier 26 Feb '14

26 Feb '14

========================================== #fedora-meeting-1: cloud WG weekly meeting ========================================== Meeting started by jzb at 17:01:42 UTC. The full logs are available at http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-02-26/fedora-meeting… . Meeting summary --------------- * Status on Cloud To-Do list (jzb, 17:04:59) * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_ToDo (jzb, 17:05:12) * ACTION: mattdm ping about getting a Cantas board set up. (jzb, 17:06:26) * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud_Changelist (mattdm, 17:07:32) * ACTION: jzb send call for activity day Friday. (jzb, 17:10:19) * Technical Specification Sample: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation/Technical_Specification (jzb, 17:11:56) * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Cloud/Cloud_ToDo#technical_specifications (mattdm, 17:12:53) * New Business (jzb, 17:15:54) * ACTION: mattdm to ping zooz about GCE status, connect up with Google people (mattdm, 17:17:08) * mattdm also working on hp cloud and amazon marketplace internally (mattdm, 17:17:41) Meeting ended at 17:19:22 UTC. Action Items ------------ * mattdm ping about getting a Cantas board set up. * jzb send call for activity day Friday. * mattdm to ping zooz about GCE status, connect up with Google people Action Items, by person ----------------------- * jzb * jzb send call for activity day Friday. * mattdm * mattdm ping about getting a Cantas board set up. * mattdm to ping zooz about GCE status, connect up with Google people * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) --------------------------- * mattdm (37) * jzb (35) * zodbot (5) * geppetto (1) * samkottler (0) * rbergeron (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -- Joe Brockmeier | Principal Cloud & Storage Analyst jzb(a)redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/ Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/

1 0

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Josh Boyer 26 Feb '14

26 Feb '14

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 02/26/2014 11:42 AM, Matthias Clasen wrote: >> >> On Wed, 2014-02-26 at 11:14 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 02:59:00PM +0000, Colin Walters wrote: >>>>> Yeah, agreed here. Everyone wants the latest shiniest thing, >>>>> even if that thing isn't ready. I really don't want to wade >>>>> through tons of bug reports for btrfs just because it has a >>>>> lot of hype. >>>> Also, right now cloud is plain old ext4. Let's see if we can >>>> ship *all* of the filesystems! It'll be fun! >>> >>> Cloud could switch to XFS along with server. The main problem is >>> that it'd make us revisit booting -- either 1) some work into >>> lightening up grub2, 2) testing and possibly enhancing syslinux's >>> xfs support, or 3) a separate /boot with a different filesystem. >>> I don't really love any of those options. >> >> I'm always dubious of 'there shall be only one' decrees - be it >> installers or desktop environments or file systems. >> > > > I have no problems (personally) about allowing the different products > to select different default filesystems. The reason people choose > different filesystems is to serve different workloads, so I think this > is just an extension of that. > > >> Also, as has already been pointed out: there are Fedora systems >> out there using ext4, xfs, btrfs and probably a few other file >> systems today. If we now suddenly change track and consider btrfs >> not 'safe enough', wasn't it pretty irresponsible of us to let >> people use it for their installations ? >> > > > I think we're saying "it's not stable enough for the *default*". > That's a different statement from "it's not stable enough for use". > > >> For the workstation, I think the options are >> >> - switch to btrfs soon to give it the exposure it needs to get >> ready (while being careful to limit the supported features, as suse >> does) >> > > I'm slightly in favor of this for the Workstation, personally. Without > wide adoption, btrfs will never get any better. No, that isn't true. Without wide adoption you may not have any impetus for btrfs to get better. However, it getting better is dependent upon wider development, maintenance, and testing. I'm not sure we are in a position to actually do that, and that is the bulk of my hesitation. Throwing something upon Fedora users as a default with the hopes that it will improve is pretty horrible in my opinion, particularly if we aren't able to actually fix things they find. josh

4 4

Re: default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification
by Matthew Miller 26 Feb '14

26 Feb '14

On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 11:30:47AM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > Cloud could switch to XFS along with server. The main problem is > > that it'd make us revisit booting -- either 1) some work into > > lightening up grub2, 2) testing and possibly enhancing syslinux's > > xfs support, or 3) a separate /boot with a different filesystem. I > > don't really love any of those options. > Could you go into more detail about those various issues? > > My off-the-cuff guess is that you don't currently plan to use GRUB2 > because it's heavyweight for your use-case? So you'd either need to > shrink it down or else find a way to allow syslinux to work (either by > supporting XFS in it or using a /boot with ext4)? That's pretty much it. :) -- Matthew Miller -- Fedora Project -- <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

cloud February 2014