[ Resend with the right server mailing list address. Sorry kernel@ people.]
Hi All,
I realize the WG is just forming up and you have a lot of other items to cover for now, but I wanted to get this sent out and have people start thinking about it sooner rather than later.
The kernel team is interested in what the Server WG sees as its requirements for the kernel package. Does today's kernel image mostly suit those needs already, or are there changes that would be beneficial?
While you think about this, please keep in mind that the kernel team really wants to keep a single kernel package across all 3 products as much as possible. We won't scale to providing multiple kernel packages or vmlinux binaries for each product. At the moment, we're essentially looking for a good "core" kernel package that suits cloud, server, and workstation and then at repackaging the drivers into subpackages where appropriate.
If you have changes you'd like to see, please let us know what they are and the reasoning behind those changes. Hopefully we can work with all 3 WGs and come up with something suitable for everyone. Thanks for your time.
josh
On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
[ Resend with the right server mailing list address. Sorry kernel@ people.]
Hi All,
I realize the WG is just forming up and you have a lot of other items to cover for now, but I wanted to get this sent out and have people start thinking about it sooner rather than later.
The kernel team is interested in what the Server WG sees as its requirements for the kernel package. Does today's kernel image mostly suit those needs already, or are there changes that would be beneficial?
While you think about this, please keep in mind that the kernel team really wants to keep a single kernel package across all 3 products as much as possible. We won't scale to providing multiple kernel packages or vmlinux binaries for each product. At the moment, we're essentially looking for a good "core" kernel package that suits cloud, server, and workstation and then at repackaging the drivers into subpackages where appropriate.
If you have changes you'd like to see, please let us know what they are and the reasoning behind those changes. Hopefully we can work with all 3 WGs and come up with something suitable for everyone. Thanks for your time.
Personally I think that as long as the kernel is modular and all useful modules are available, the Server WG should not have trouble with it.
I guess the installation procedure (hence Anaconda) need to be somewhat customizable so that the server image is by default a lot friendlier to the type of hardware a server gets to use, and the kind of defaults that make more sense for a server vs say desktop or cloud.
But I think all this can be built easily above a common kernel.
Simo.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2013 11:10 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
[ Resend with the right server mailing list address. Sorry kernel@ people.]
Hi All,
I realize the WG is just forming up and you have a lot of other items to cover for now, but I wanted to get this sent out and have people start thinking about it sooner rather than later.
The kernel team is interested in what the Server WG sees as its requirements for the kernel package. Does today's kernel image mostly suit those needs already, or are there changes that would be beneficial?
While you think about this, please keep in mind that the kernel team really wants to keep a single kernel package across all 3 products as much as possible. We won't scale to providing multiple kernel packages or vmlinux binaries for each product. At the moment, we're essentially looking for a good "core" kernel package that suits cloud, server, and workstation and then at repackaging the drivers into subpackages where appropriate.
If you have changes you'd like to see, please let us know what they are and the reasoning behind those changes. Hopefully we can work with all 3 WGs and come up with something suitable for everyone. Thanks for your time.
Personally I think that as long as the kernel is modular and all useful modules are available, the Server WG should not have trouble with it.
I guess the installation procedure (hence Anaconda) need to be somewhat customizable so that the server image is by default a lot friendlier to the type of hardware a server gets to use, and the kind of defaults that make more sense for a server vs say desktop or cloud.
But I think all this can be built easily above a common kernel.
I agree as well. A common kernel is paramount.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Stephen Gallagher sgallagh@redhat.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 10/30/2013 11:10 AM, Simo Sorce wrote:
On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:16 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
[ Resend with the right server mailing list address. Sorry kernel@ people.]
Hi All,
I realize the WG is just forming up and you have a lot of other items to cover for now, but I wanted to get this sent out and have people start thinking about it sooner rather than later.
The kernel team is interested in what the Server WG sees as its requirements for the kernel package. Does today's kernel image mostly suit those needs already, or are there changes that would be beneficial?
While you think about this, please keep in mind that the kernel team really wants to keep a single kernel package across all 3 products as much as possible. We won't scale to providing multiple kernel packages or vmlinux binaries for each product. At the moment, we're essentially looking for a good "core" kernel package that suits cloud, server, and workstation and then at repackaging the drivers into subpackages where appropriate.
If you have changes you'd like to see, please let us know what they are and the reasoning behind those changes. Hopefully we can work with all 3 WGs and come up with something suitable for everyone. Thanks for your time.
Personally I think that as long as the kernel is modular and all useful modules are available, the Server WG should not have trouble with it.
I guess the installation procedure (hence Anaconda) need to be somewhat customizable so that the server image is by default a lot friendlier to the type of hardware a server gets to use, and the kind of defaults that make more sense for a server vs say desktop or cloud.
But I think all this can be built easily above a common kernel.
I agree as well. A common kernel is paramount.
OK, good. To be fair, I didn't think there would be many requirements from the Server WG. Most of the packaging changes will likely be driven by the Cloud WG. At the moment, it shouldn't be difficult for Server to install both the small base kernel package and the larger kernel-drivers subpackage (for example).
At the same time, it would be good to look over what the current kernel is providing and see if you notice any glaring omissions in either drivers or settings. Or at the very least, perhaps define what kind of machines you will be targeting with the Server WG spin. Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in heterogeneous environments, etc. Hopefully the impacts to the kernel there will be minimal, but it would help us understand what you're shooting for so we can keep it in mind.
josh
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in heterogeneous environments, etc.
The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines.
On Wed, 2013-10-30 at 10:51 -0700, David Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in heterogeneous environments, etc.
The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines.
Or simply, sites so big can care for their own kernel builds most probably, or seek for commercial support.
Simo.
On 10/30/2013 05:51 PM, David Strauss wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Josh Boyer jwboyer@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in heterogeneous environments, etc.
The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines.
I dont see why so please explain?
JBG
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:32:26PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in heterogeneous environments, etc.
The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines.
I dont see why so please explain?
HPC is kind of a special case, where performance trumps all else. It would be pretty awesome to see a Fedora product based around that. It could have ATLAS packages that dynamically build from source as designed, for one thing. As heretical as this sounds, SELinux might be off on the nodes, and so on.
On 10/30/2013 06:39 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 06:32:26PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
Massive 4096 multi-cored CPU machines with terabytes of DRAM and petabytes of storage, or more commodity style hardware used in heterogeneous environments, etc.
The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines.
I dont see why so please explain?
HPC is kind of a special case, where performance trumps all else. It would be pretty awesome to see a Fedora product based around that. It could have ATLAS packages that dynamically build from source as designed, for one thing. As heretical as this sounds, SELinux might be off on the nodes, and so on.
Still not seeing why that product could not be one of the server products or strong argument for it being in it's own group.
JBG
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:32 AM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/30/2013 05:51 PM, David Strauss wrote:
The latter. We'd want a separate HPC group for 512+ core machines.
I dont see why so please explain?
HPC architecture involves atypical services, hardware, and frameworks versus normal server computing, even compared to thousands of cloud machines. Wikipedia has some good coverage of popular approaches [1]. A properly built kernel is an essential part of an HPC deployment, particularly with respect to the scheduler and memory management. Build options appropriate for embedded all the way to normal servers are often inappropriate for HPC.
SUSE Linux has a large following in HPC, but it's not just a product of their general server work.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Parallel_computing
server@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
David Timothy Strauss -
Josh Boyer -
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson -
Matthew Miller -
Simo Sorce -
Stephen Gallagher