Attention Cloud WG nominees

[Matthias Runge]

On 21/10/13 11:21, Joe Brockmeier wrote:

> 
> 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. 

Agreed. A server provides infrastructure. What happens, when you need to
scale your infrastructure? Is this something for Cloud WG or for Server
WG? Usually you'd set up a infrastructure, a monitoring and would define
actions, what to do, if event e is triggered. That could imply to spawn
up other servers.

> - 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). 

Yes, still that doesn't explain, why the target of this WG shouldn't be
directly targeted to provide infrastructure and the server images should
be executed in the infrastructure e.g provided by a cloud.

(Or I might be blind, and I really don't see your point here)

> 
>> 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.
> 
I see, as it's the opposite of how server wg (and also
cloud wg) would see themselves.

Matthias

-- 
Matthias Runge <mrunge at matthias-runge.de>