Attention Cloud WG nominees

[Sandro "red" Mathys]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Joe Brockmeier <jzb at redhat.com> 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 at redhat.com | http://community.redhat.com/
> Twitter: @jzb  | http://dissociatedpress.net/
> _______________________________________________
> cloud mailing list
> cloud at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud
> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct