Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-aurora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-aurora-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ABEC5178E8 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:13:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 12560 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2015 21:13:24 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-aurora-dev-archive@aurora.apache.org Received: (qmail 12508 invoked by uid 500); 21 Oct 2015 21:13:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@aurora.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@aurora.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@aurora.apache.org Received: (qmail 12484 invoked by uid 99); 21 Oct 2015 21:13:24 -0000 Received: from Unknown (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:13:24 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id CEFFFC0FC5 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:13:23 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: 3.15 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.15 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=3, KAM_LOTSOFHASH=0.25, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=twitter.com Received: from mx1-eu-west.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FPBeWyw4C_NI for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:13:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wi0-f174.google.com (mail-wi0-f174.google.com [209.85.212.174]) by mx1-eu-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-eu-west.apache.org) with ESMTPS id E3A0C20594 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:13:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so109040955wic.0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Id/NfYSw0JHwyW+FNhSWzr1WUKBJOrMQllhX0MIA/9I=; b=Yw3FPDiDCb+rVrcb4nN1Blm8FFeDCuwXnDVhV9sipej6Xy3IPqHBPmGXFZ5gPunxqI 78TEQTojELeB+ZNylU9gppeeOrvWN5rsv1yhg4EhM7nY6J7Ll/vTrwEGAopWi4Tsn1ca r80o9HlVbrlOW9ti1RRqrqJ9K3GNtGQl2lU8bGXgCDAwVF2lPTDLuzrKOBT7OCgwypRE /oWd0S/AfopxpBJeYtceDDujKBLTe6mH7e8DwFGHCbqrJq+//WPY3bN2BRFwfF5HFphp NGCu71e3Gbh8N1zcbKegaE/si875VAhOl6ZtYIrU2Aq314Zai7HISUHhzMFBo6Ehsav+ LXQA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm6QGnggtrkkm1STTavnRm7PFtuHkC5vqXk1y+ljjB/4aCOykQVHtdUkYl3t1T2WuEdRnSF MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.198.233 with SMTP id jf9mr30852797wic.66.1445461991466; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.176.143 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1445414309661.77792@blue-yonder.com> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:13:11 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Unified container support in Aurora From: Steve Niemitz To: dev@aurora.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6225ba89c3e70522a3d8b2 --047d7b6225ba89c3e70522a3d8b2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 I think the unified container support will eventually be superior to the current docker implementation, however after reading over the design doc, a few critical pieces are missing that makes it basically a non starter for now. - Lack of support for a docker registry removes one of the two biggest reasons for using docker. (You don't have to worry about distribution) - I'm unclear how they plan to support non-filesystem layers, such as ENV directives in the docker containers. As-is, they're not really actually providing support for docker, simply support for the container format. Until mesos can actually pull from a repo and supports a better provisioning strategy (simply copying the layers is unacceptable), I don't see their docker support being very useful. On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Zameer Manji wrote: > I'm in favor of eventually deprecating the existing Docker implementation > and moving to Mesos unified container support. The issues with the existing > Docker integration (including MESOS-1659) makes me think that we should > adopt something that is better integrated with the Mesos model. I'd be > curious to see what others think about this. > > On Wed, Oct 21, 2015 at 12:58 AM, Erb, Stephan < > Stephan.Erb@blue-yonder.com> > wrote: > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > we would be interested in the unified container support as well. It would > > allow us to independently update the major version of the slave OS and > the > > OS used within containers. > > > > Nevertheless, while very interesting for the future, it is not a pressing > > issue for us right now. In addition, as we are not using docker, backward > > compatibility is not a blocker for us. > > > > Best Regards, > > Stephan > > ________________________________________ > > From: Maxim Khutornenko > > Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2015 11:23 PM > > To: dev@aurora.apache.org > > Subject: Unified container support in Aurora > > > > With Mesos community closing in on the unified container solution > > (MESOS-2386)[1], what is our stance on supporting it in Aurora? > > > > The current Docker integration in Aurora predates this effort and > > relies on ContainerInfo.Type.DOCKER (2) (eventually to be deprecated?) > > rather than the newly introduced Image.DOCKER (3) spec. More > > importantly though, the shift to the image-based spec and the unified > > Mesos containerizer will finally allow us to support multiple > > container types (Docker, AppC) and run executor outside of a task > > image space. The latter, IMO, will be a huge win for us as baking > > python-based-native-lib-dependent executor into a customer image was > > less than ideal to start with (e.g. MESOS-1659) and one of the reasons > > current Docker support in Aurora is still in beta. > > > > I propose we freeze and eventually deprecate the existing Docker > > implementation in Aurora in favor of the new approach (to be designed) > > leveraging the Mesos unified container support. Thoughts? > > > > Thanks, > > Maxim > > > > [1] - > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Fx5TS0LytV7u5MZExQS0-g-gScX2yKCKQg9UPFzhp6U > > [2] - > > > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/3c35a6b20dc07228ca30ad2d00115017224284a1/include/mesos/mesos.proto#L1416 > > [3] - > > > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/3c35a6b20dc07228ca30ad2d00115017224284a1/include/mesos/mesos.proto#L1296 > > > > -- > > Zameer Manji > > > > > > < > https://github.com/apache/mesos/blob/3c35a6b20dc07228ca30ad2d00115017224284a1/include/mesos/mesos.proto#L1296 > > > > > --047d7b6225ba89c3e70522a3d8b2--