63 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
63 lines
4.3 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
|||
|
|
title: " Weekly Kubernetes Community Hangout Notes - July 10 2015 "
|
|||
|
date: 2015-07-13
|
|||
|
|
slug: weekly-kubernetes-community-hangout
|
|||
|
|
url: /blog/2015/07/Weekly-Kubernetes-Community-Hangout
|
|||
|
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Every week the Kubernetes contributing community meet virtually over Google Hangouts. We want anyone who's interested to know what's discussed in this forum.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Here are the notes from today's meeting:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Eric Paris: replacing salt with ansible (if we want)
|
|||
|
|
* In contrib, there is a provisioning tool written in ansible
|
|||
|
|
* The goal in the rewrite was to eliminate as much of the cloud provider stuff as possible
|
|||
|
|
* The salt setup does a bunch of setup in scripts and then the environment is setup with salt
|
|||
|
|
* This means that things like generating certs is done differently on GCE/AWS/Vagrant
|
|||
|
|
* For ansible, everything must be done within ansible
|
|||
|
|
* Background on ansible
|
|||
|
|
* Does not have clients
|
|||
|
|
* Provisioner ssh into the machine and runs scripts on the machine
|
|||
|
|
* You define what you want your cluster to look like, run the script, and it sets up everything at once
|
|||
|
|
* If you make one change in a config file, ansible re-runs everything (which isn’t always desirable)
|
|||
|
|
* Uses a jinja2 template
|
|||
|
|
* Create machines with minimal software, then use ansible to get that machine into a runnable state
|
|||
|
|
* Sets up all of the add-ons
|
|||
|
|
* Eliminates the provisioner shell scripts
|
|||
|
|
* Full cluster setup currently takes about 6 minutes
|
|||
|
|
* CentOS with some packages
|
|||
|
|
* Redeploy to the cluster takes 25 seconds
|
|||
|
|
* Questions for Eric
|
|||
|
|
* Where does the provider-specific configuration go?
|
|||
|
|
* The only network setup that the ansible config does is flannel; you can turn it off
|
|||
|
|
* What about init vs. systemd?
|
|||
|
|
* Should be able to support in the code w/o any trouble (not yet implemented)
|
|||
|
|
* Discussion
|
|||
|
|
* Why not push the setup work into containers or kubernetes config?
|
|||
|
|
* To bootstrap a cluster drop a kubelet and a manifest
|
|||
|
|
* Running a kubelet and configuring the network should be the only things required. We can cut a machine image that is preconfigured minus the data package (certs, etc)
|
|||
|
|
* The ansible scripts install kubelet & docker if they aren’t already installed
|
|||
|
|
* Each OS (RedHat, Debian, Ubuntu) could have a different image. We could view this as part of the build process instead of the install process.
|
|||
|
|
* There needs to be solution for bare metal as well.
|
|||
|
|
* In favor of the overall goal -- reducing the special configuration in the salt configuration
|
|||
|
|
* Everything except the kubelet should run inside a container (eventually the kubelet should as well)
|
|||
|
|
* Running in a container doesn’t cut down on the complexity that we currently have
|
|||
|
|
* But it does more clearly define the interface about what the code expects
|
|||
|
|
* These tools (Chef, Puppet, Ansible) conflate binary distribution with configuration
|
|||
|
|
* Containers more clearly separate these problems
|
|||
|
|
* The mesos deployment is not completely automated yet, but the mesos deployment is completely different: kubelets get put on top on an existing mesos cluster
|
|||
|
|
* The bash scripts allow the mesos devs to see what each cloud provider is doing and re-use the relevant bits
|
|||
|
|
* There was a large reverse engineering curve, but the bash is at least readable as opposed to the salt
|
|||
|
|
* Openstack uses a different deployment as well
|
|||
|
|
* We need a well documented list of steps (e.g. create certs) that are necessary to stand up a cluster
|
|||
|
|
* This would allow us to compare across cloud providers
|
|||
|
|
* We should reduce the number of steps as much as possible
|
|||
|
|
* Ansible has 241 steps to launch a cluster
|
|||
|
|
* 1.0 Code freeze
|
|||
|
|
* How are we getting out of code freeze?
|
|||
|
|
* This is a topic for next week, but the preview is that we will move slowly rather than totally opening the firehose
|
|||
|
|
* We want to clear the backlog as fast as possible while maintaining stability both on HEAD and on the 1.0 branch
|
|||
|
|
* The backlog of almost 300 PRs but there are also various parallel feature branches that have been developed during the freeze
|
|||
|
|
* Cutting a cherry pick release today (1.0.1) that fixes a few issues
|
|||
|
|
* Next week we will discuss the cadence for patch releases
|