#127 Working with the Server WG
Closed 3 years ago Opened 4 years ago by roshi.

It was brought up in today's Server WG meeting [0] that they wanted to do some coordination with Workstation and Cloud. Ideas for WS are already there, but some thought should be put into how Server and Cloud can make things easier for both to work together when they're deployed. This ticket is a call to arms for some brain storming on this topic.

[0] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2015-10-13/serversig.2015-10-13-15.00.log.html


Okay, so, here's a possibility I see.

As I've been arguing, I think Atomic presents a good opportunity to really grow in the new-computing-model universe, in a way that the Cloud Base image has never taken off. If/when we pivot the Cloud edition to be Fedora Atomic Host, that leaves Fedora's "I just want Fedora, running in cloud environments" story... uh, cloudy.

My suggestion is to disperse the cloudiness across the project, and have in-the-cloud versions of both Fedora Atomic Host and Fedora Server — and maybe the Xfce spin, and maybe in the future even Fedora Workstation, for remote desktop. Possibly, this would remove the need for a Cloud Base image separate from Fedora Server, or maybe not.

This makes sense to me, because Workstation and Server are both use-case focused, whereas Cloud in its generic form is simply ''environment''-focused. Atomic, however, is use-case focused, so that all makes sense at the same level.

Cloud SIG would continue to work with the other WGs and SIGs on these images, with testing, expertise, and so on.

All of these images would be available on the download/launch page for the specific edition, and we'd additionally have a cloud.fpo page collecting all of them, looking very like https://arm.fedoraproject.org/.

I think that having cloud images for the Server product is a great idea. It's legitimate to want to consume Fedora's Server goodness from bare metal and cloud-based hosts alike, and offering both of those options would make for a stronger Fedora Server.

What does the Server WG think about this?

At the last Server WG meeting, it seemed like the general thought was that starting from Cloud Base and running cloudtoserver covered that use case pretty well, but that maybe:

  1. this could be promoted better,
  2. Server WG could take ownership of that script, if it would help, and
  3. possibly it could be integrated into cloud-init, and so always easily available.

Replying to [comment:4 mattdm]:

At the last Server WG meeting, it seemed like the general thought was that starting from Cloud Base and running cloudtoserver covered that use case pretty well, but that maybe:

  1. this could be promoted better,
  2. Server WG could take ownership of that script, if it would help, and
  3. possibly it could be integrated into cloud-init, and so always easily available.

I'm a big fan of this approach. I like it because we don't have two separate offerings (i.e. we don't have to upload a million images to ec2) and because the existing cloud image stays relatively unchanged, meaning existing users can continue to use it transparently.

If this is what we decide to do this the cloud WG could work closely with the server WG to fine tune this process, overcome any technical issues, and promote the end result.

Removing meeting keyword for now (as discussed in the meeting).

Metadata Update from @dustymabe:
- Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)

3 years ago

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata