bigtop-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jay Vyas <jayunit100.apa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: BIGTOP-1x branch.. Do we need multitenancy systems?
Date Wed, 11 Feb 2015 12:56:15 GMT
makes sense to me; This should help me to picture where bigtop is headed for the next several
months.

So I guess the answer is "yes : we still beleive in multitenant packaging and systems".

Thanks for all the feedback!

> On Feb 11, 2015, at 3:13 AM, Bruno Mahé <bruno@bmahe.net> wrote:
> 
>> On 02/10/2015 10:05 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:00 PM, RJ Nowling <rnowling@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Can we articulate the value of packages over tarballs?  In my view, packages
>>> are useful for managing dependencies and in-place updates.
>> In my view packages are the only way to get into the traditional IT deployment
>> infrastructures. These are the same infrastructures that don't want to touch
>> Ambari at all, since they are all standardized on Puppet/Chef and traditional
>> Linux packaging.
>> 
>> There's quite a few of them out there still, despite all the push of
>> Silicon Valley
>> to get everybody to things like Docker, etc.
> 
> +1.
> 
> I like docker and it is a very nice project. But it is not going to be an end in itself.
> Companies will continue to have various hosts, going from bare metal to different clouds
providers (SaaS, PaaS...), docker included.
> 
> Aside from that, using packages provide so many benefits over tarballs:
> * Packages have some metadata so I know what file belong where and how and what version
> * all the dependencies are specified in it. Which makes it easier to reuse even across
docker files. This includes system dependencies as well (ex: who depends on psmisc? why? can
it be removed now that we updated Apache Hadoop?)
> * it enables us to respect the Single Responsibility Principe and to satisfy everyone,
folks using bare metal as well as cloud technologies users
> * some patches may still need to be applied for compatibility/build reasons. Using packages
makes that easier
> * It provides a deep integration with the system so "it just works". Users are created,
initscripts setup, alternatives setup, everything has the right permissions...
> * It makes it dead easy when I want to build multiple variants of the same image since
everything is pulled and setup correctly. If I were to manually unpack tarballs, I would have
to take care of that manually and also it would take a lot more space than the package equivalent
unless I spend a lot of time deleting internal parts of each component. Example: I want hadoop
client and fuse only for a variant.
> 
> Note that this could also be done with tarballs as well, but that would require a lot
of duplication of command lines, trials and errors and wouldn't be as maintainable.
> 
> In conclusion, even if Apache Bigtop was to focus on docker, building packages would
be much better than dropping them and going toward a 'tarball' approach. Packages would not
only be more maintainable, satisfy more use cases but would also provide an abstraction layer
so the docker files could focus on the image itself instead of setting up the various combinations
of Apache Hadoop components.
> From a 10 000 ft view and in the big lines, docker is not much different than vagrant
or boxgrinder. For those tools, having the recipe using the packages was simplifying a lot
of things and I don't see why it would be different with docker.
> 
> 
>>> Related question: what are BigTop's goals? Just integration testing?
>>> Full blown distro targeted at end users? Packaging for others to build distros
on top of?
>> All of the above? ;-) Seriously, I think we need to provide a way for consumers
>> of bigdata technology to be able to deploy it in the most efficient
>> way. This means
>> that we are likely to need to embrace different ways of packaging our stuff.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
> +1 again
> 
> Another way to put it is to make the Apache Hadoop ecosystem usable.
> That includes making it consumable as well as verifying that it all works together.
> Packages have been the main way to consume such artifacts, but we have always been opened
to other ways (see vagrant and boxgrinder). We even had at some point a kickstart image to
build bootable usb keys with an out of the box working Apache Hadoop environment :)
> 
> If tomorrow packages become obsolete, I don't see why we could not drop them. But I think
we are still far from that.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Bruno

Mime
View raw message