mesos-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Sallou <olivier.sal...@irisa.fr>
Subject Re: [Mesos 2.0] Let's talk about the future
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2016 07:37:31 GMT
----- Mail original -----

> De: "Jay JN Guo" <guojiannan@cn.ibm.com>
> À: "user" <user@mesos.apache.org>, "mesos" <dev@mesos.apache.org>
> Envoyé: Vendredi 29 Juillet 2016 09:13:20
> Objet: [Mesos 2.0] Let's talk about the future

> Hi,

> As we are all excited about release 1.0.0, it's never too early to talk about
> next big thing: Mesos 2.0.0. What major things should be done next?

> I believe there are still many features you desire in Mesos and some of them
> are already under development. I'd like to collect your minds and align the
> vision in this mail thread. For example, here are items on Mesos long term
> roadmap:

> Pluggable Fetcher
> Oversubscription for reservation: Optimistic offers
> Resource Revocation
> Pod support
> Quota chunks
> Multiple-role support for frameworks
> User namespace support
What features do you expect from this? Is it running a task/container as a different user
on a per container basis (root in container but seen as user X on host)? (as expected in Docker
in the future, seems it also need linux kernel updates) 

> Event bus
> First class resources (Cpu topology info, GPU topology info, disk speed, etc)
there was a quite recent proposal about location awareness (rack etc...) which also looks
interesting 

> Deprecate Docker containerizer (in favor of Unified containerizer w/ Docker
> support)
while this is long term (let's keep people time to switch to unified ;-) ), deprecation of
Docker containerizer should go with support of equivalent port mapping over bridge functionality
as currently proposed by Docker network bridge mode. I know there is a track in JIRA for this
feature, but without it, I think that you cannot drop the Docker containerizer. CNI plugins
on mesos are important (IP per container), but should not be mandatory (more complex to install/setup
than pure mesos). Indeed, CNI integration is not complete with Mesos or other frameworks (you
do not fully manage ports of Calico etc... via Mesos, basically you only ask an IP for your
container, all port rules are managed directly via the tool), and current Docker bridge/user
mode with Mesos is far more easy to setup/use. 

Olivier 

> I would appreciate it if you could either share your ideas or vote on these
> items, and we will discuss it in next community sync.

> We may not have an unshakeable conclusion as container technology is evolving
> at an ever faster pace, but the whole community, especially newbies like
> myself, would profoundly benefit from a clear plan and priority for next 3-6
> months.

> Cheers,
> /Jay

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message