Discussion of Fedora Server use-cases

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" johannbg at gmail.com
Tue Oct 29 23:49:09 UTC 2013

On 10/29/2013 09:30 PM, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:46 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson"
> <johannbg at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/28/2013 01:29 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> This was my thinking, I thought the cloud WG is about building lean
>>> images that do not have much in the way of wizards, installers, and
>>> hand-holding software, but are focused toward rapid deployment, either
>>> as lean hosts or as computing/elastic guests, all controlled via some
>>> configuration engine like puppet etc... basically single task machines.
>>> I see the server WG more about building heavier, long term, multipurpose
>>> servers (be it on bare metal or as guest).
>> I would disagree I would say single purpose servers/vm/containers all fall
>> under the server WG as well but I think we should be looking at this from
>> application stand point as in which of those services/daemon fall under the
>> server WG and that means we could make up to about 500 550 applications or
>> "products" that can be deployed on bare metal in vm's or containers we would
>> be delivering.
> I think it would make most sense for Cloud and Server to "share
> applications", i.e. the same application package can be deployed
> either within a single-purpose Cloud image (automatically managed for
> horizontal scaling), or as a single instance within a Server (one of
> many applications running on this particular Server).

We see things quite differently here I look at a server servicing one or 
more server application ( including hosting the cloud ) and the cloud 
first foremost a deliver method of server application.

So we ( as in the server WG ) handle all the server applications and the 
solution surrounding that while the cloud WG handles the deliverable and 
the configuration aspect of the server applications.

> Given that,  I think the Server WG should indeed choose a very limited
> set of "applications" / "services" to include within the Server
> product and to make management of this limited set of services really
> good.

I disagree


More information about the server mailing list