Cloud image use cases

Matt Micene nzwulfin at gmail.com
Fri Jul 10 16:46:46 UTC 2015


>
> Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
> thousands dollars per month.
>

Agreed, that could be an issue.


> More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
> by a large margin.


I'd like to see data.  The end user will wind up paying for all storage
attached to a running instance, not just what OS is laid down.   Based on a
quick launch, the current Ubuntu 14.04 HVM community image in EC2 is based
on an 8GB image.

What's a data supported target for an appropriate "small enough" sized
Cloud image?

On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Haïkel <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> wrote:

>
>
> 2015-07-10 17:59 GMT+02:00 Matt Micene <nzwulfin at gmail.com>:
>
>> So what I'm really after is what sets Fedora Cloud apart from every
>>> other distro cloud image.  What usecases is it better at than {Ubuntu,
>>> SuSE, <whatever>}.
>>
>>
>> Given that logic, Fedora should stop everything but Atomic.  The Cloud
>> image should be Fedora optimized for the cloud instance experience, just
>> like Workstation is Fedora optimized for the desktop user experience. It
>> shouldn't be massively different for Cloud than Server, b/c the use case
>> between Server and Cloud isn't that large.
>>
>> Fedora should have a "typical" answer for what use cases are better than
>> XYZ distro, that isn't dependent on a (frankly) edge use case like a
>> container specific platform.  Atomic is a new and interesting thing, with a
>> very small and specific purpose and design.  That's a good thing and
>> shouldn't be used as an argument against the Cloud image.  Or even as a
>> comparison.
>>
>>
>>> > Depends: for end-users, it could mean a smaller bill each month on
>>> storage.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I'm not a fan of this argument for minimizing the Cloud experience as the
>> real cost of "magnetic" storage in most cloud providers is small.  If
>> pulling Python saves 1GB of on disk installed OS space, then users in a AWS
>> environment save $0.24 a month / server in the most expensive storage in
>> the most expensive region (Sao Paolo if you're curious).  And I'm sure we
>> aren't shaving that much off the image.  I have to think the level of
>> engineering required to majorly redesign things around minimization efforts
>> are likely mis-placed if end user cost is the main metric.
>>
>>
> Multiply this by the number of instances, and it could amount to few
> thousands dollars per month.
> More globally, our cloud image is still too fat compared to other distros
> by a large margin.
>
>
>
>> That's where the Stack&Env WG work is important for us, as it could become
>>> an asset against our other offers.
>>>
>>
>> This ^^^  I'm a firm believer that the SCL work that got dropped is a
>> huge value when we want to talk about differentiating Fedora as a Cloud or
>> Server platform.  The ability to cleanly separate system requirements from
>> end-user platforms is huge.  I think the Cloud SIG should be jumping up and
>> down on getting SCLs back on track.
>>
>> - Matt M
>>
>>
> Well, SCL is another topic (to remain polite), and I'm more than happy to
> let Stack&Env WG
> dealing with that matter.
>
> Regards,
> H.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20150710/eaa788a5/attachment.html>


More information about the cloud mailing list