On 24/08/18 04:36, Fox, Kevin M wrote:
Or use kubelet in standalone mode. It can be configured for either Cri-o or
Docker. You can drive the static manifests from heat/ansible per host as normal
and it would be a step in the greater direction of getting to Kubernetes
without needing the whole thing at once, if that is the goal.
I was an advocate for using kubectl standalone for our container
orchestration needs well before we started containerizing TripleO. After
talking to a few kubernetes folk I cooled on the idea, because they had
one of two responses:
- cautious encouragement, but uncertainty about kubectl standalone
interface support and consideration for those use cases
- googly eyed incomprehension followed by "why would you do that??"
This was a while ago now so this could be worth revisiting in the
future. We'll be making gradual changes, the first of which is using
podman to manage single containers. However podman has native support
for the pod format, so I'm hoping we can switch to that once this
transition is complete. Then evaluating kubectl becomes much easier.
Question. Rather then writing a middle layer to abstract both container
engines, couldn't you just use CRI? CRI is CRI-O's native language, and there
is support already for Docker as well.
We're not writing a middle layer, we're leveraging one which is already
there.
CRI-O is a socket interface and podman is a CLI interface that both sit
on top of the exact same Go libraries. At this point, switching to
podman needs a much lower development effort because we're replacing
docker CLI calls.
Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Jay Pipes [jaypi...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:36 AM
To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] podman: varlink interface for nice API
calls
Dan, thanks for the details and answers. Appreciated.
Best,
-jay
On 08/23/2018 10:50 AM, Dan Prince wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:49 PM Jay Pipes <jaypi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 08/15/2018 04:01 PM, Emilien Macchi wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:31 PM Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com
<mailto:emil...@redhat.com>> wrote:
More seriously here: there is an ongoing effort to converge the
tools around containerization within Red Hat, and we, TripleO are
interested to continue the containerization of our services (which
was initially done with Docker & Docker-Distribution).
We're looking at how these containers could be managed by k8s one
day but way before that we plan to swap out Docker and join CRI-O
efforts, which seem to be using Podman + Buildah (among other things).
I guess my wording wasn't the best but Alex explained way better here:
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-tc/%23openstack-tc.2018-08-15.log.html#t2018-08-15T17:56:52
If I may have a chance to rephrase, I guess our current intention is to
continue our containerization and investigate how we can improve our
tooling to better orchestrate the containers.
We have a nice interface (openstack/paunch) that allows us to run
multiple container backends, and we're currently looking outside of
Docker to see how we could solve our current challenges with the new tools.
We're looking at CRI-O because it happens to be a project with a great
community, focusing on some problems that we, TripleO have been facing
since we containerized our services.
We're doing all of this in the open, so feel free to ask any question.
I appreciate your response, Emilien, thank you. Alex' responses to
Jeremy on the #openstack-tc channel were informative, thank you Alex.
For now, it *seems* to me that all of the chosen tooling is very Red Hat
centric. Which makes sense to me, considering Triple-O is a Red Hat product.
Perhaps a slight clarification here is needed. "Director" is a Red Hat
product. TripleO is an upstream project that is now largely driven by
Red Hat and is today marked as single vendor. We welcome others to
contribute to the project upstream just like anybody else.
And for those who don't know the history the TripleO project was once
multi-vendor as well. So a lot of the abstractions we have in place
could easily be extended to support distro specific implementation
details. (Kind of what I view podman as in the scope of this thread).
I don't know how much of the current reinvention of container runtimes
and various tooling around containers is the result of politics. I don't
know how much is the result of certain companies wanting to "own" the
container stack from top to bottom. Or how much is a result of technical
disagreements that simply cannot (or will not) be resolved among
contributors in the container development ecosystem.
Or is it some combination of the above? I don't know.
What I *do* know is that the current "NIH du jour" mentality currently
playing itself out in the container ecosystem -- reminding me very much
of the Javascript ecosystem -- makes it difficult for any potential
*consumers* of container libraries, runtimes or applications to be
confident that any choice they make towards one of the other will be the
*right* choice or even a *possible* choice next year -- or next week.
Perhaps this is why things like openstack/paunch exist -- to give you
options if something doesn't pan out.
This is exactly why paunch exists.
Re, the podman thing I look at it as an implementation detail. The
good news is that given it is almost a parity replacement for what we
already use we'll still contribute to the OpenStack community in
similar ways. Ultimately whether you run 'docker run' or 'podman run'
you end up with the same thing as far as the existing TripleO
architecture goes.
Dan
You have a tough job. I wish you all the luck in the world in making
these decisions and hope politics and internal corporate management
decisions play as little a role in them as possible.
Best,
-jay
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
