On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 09:32:55AM +0200, Matthias Runge wrote: >> On 18/10/13 19:59, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> > * Governance plan and documents >> > * A product definition -- target audience and so on >> > * A list of changes from existing procedures >> > * Actually doing things >> ... >> > I've also heard a few comments suggesting that the cloud guest should >> > basically just be the server product in image form, with cloud-init. >> > This is a model where cloud computing is basically seen as providing >> > "servers in the sky"; I think there's a place for that, but again, I >> > don't think it's what we should be aiming at. The point of having this >> > product as something different is so we can actually better address the >> > different needs. >> >> Matt, thank you for driving this further! >> >> During the last weekend, I was thinking about the definition of cloud >> working group and what we should achieve. >> >> When thinking about what will be the role of images in the cloud, let's >> say in 3-5 years, I believe, allmost every server image will be executed >> in a virtual environment, i.e. in a cloud environment. Thus, I think, we >> (as the cloud working group) should target this. Every image in the >> cloud will be used as "server" image, to serve something. > > Images are currently used to 'serve' something, what we're talking about > here is the difference between pets and cattle, really. How I see the > difference here: > > - server == pet == a system that is running on the bare hardware and may > run the IaaS or PaaS that is running instances/applications. I care a > lot if this goes down because it's infrastructure. > - instance/image == cattle == a system that has the libraries/apps I > need *right now* and is being used as part of scale out applications, > and if it dies, I don't care as much because I have an automated > system that can spin up a new image with the application data. > > (Being *very* general here). I very much like this approach to say the Server Product is for pets and the Cloud Product is for cattle. But I do think both pets and cattle can be run both on bare metal or virtualized. For those who don't know the pet/cattle analogy yet, you want to look at slide 20 of this presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/randybias/architectures-for-open-and-scalable-clouds ...or also at slide 17 in this one: http://www.slideshare.net/gmccance/cern-data-centre-evolution >> That would mean switched roles/targets between the server wg and the >> cloud wg (in "their" target and in "cloud image" aim). >> >> So in terms of product definition: >> >> * we strive to provide cloud INFRASTRUCTURE to primarily execute server >> images provided by the server wg, target audience will be people running >> Fedora to provide infrastructure. > > I think this is the reverse of how we should be structuring the > cloud/server groups. > > Best, > > jzb > -- > Joe Brockmeier | Open Source and Standards, Red Hat > jzb@xxxxxxxxxx | http://community.redhat.com/ > Twitter: @jzb | http://dissociatedpress.net/ > _______________________________________________ > cloud mailing list > cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud > Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
