On 07/07/2015 21:35, Ivo Jimenez wrote: > Sorry Loic, I thought I had replied to your message. > >> I did not know about https://github.com/signalfuse/maestro-ng, sound really >> interesting ! How is it different from >> https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes or >> https://github.com/projectatomic or https://coreos.com/ ? I've no experience >> in any of them. > > maestro is very lightweight compared to kubernetes. kubernetes has monitoring/dashboard features (among many others) and requires an agent to be installed alongside the docker hosts. maestro communicates directly with the docker daemon, so it doesn't require any external dependencies/configuration. Neither of the two have deployment features. maestro's codebase is much more smaller and it's written in python (vs. golang for kubernetes). > > coreos and projectatomic are Linux distros that provide "just enough operating system" (JeOS) and assume that all applications run in containerized form. There are projects that combine coreos and kubernetes (plus more infra) to turn a cluster into a PaaS. Deis is an example (which uses Ceph as its storage backend). > Thanks for educating me :-) I was under the impression (100% unverified) that projectatomic competes with kubernetes in the sense that it knows and handles multiple machines, not just one. Do you see OpenStack with docker instances more of a Deis competitor or a kubernetes / maestro competitor ? >> You're going in a direction I did not think about: adding a task instead of >> modifying teuthology itself. It's an interesting route and maybe better than >> the one I took which is to modify the lock/provision files, mostly, to >> create OpenStack machines instead of Downburst machines. I'm very interested >> to know if that works out. Modifying the internals of teuthology is more >> complicated and if your method works, it's likely to be simpler. > > Yes, the plan is to combine ansible+maestro to make it easier to run integration tests. My goal is to make it possible to run teuthology on a laptop > >> >> I see you wrote tests which is much needed. I found that having integration >> tests is better than any kind of unit / functional testing because, in the >> end, most of teuthology work is to properly assemble and run bits and pieces >> that are external to it. In other words, without integration tests you cover >> only a fraction of the behavior even if you cover 100% of the LOC. >> >> Cheers > > thanks! > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
