8 ms·
CoreOS Stable Release
- jvandyke 12y agoFlynn 1.0 release in 3, 2, 1... crosses fingers
- danielsiders 12y agoBeta's coming soon and we're still on target to ship a production-grade stable version of the major features in a few months.
- jhuckestein 12y agoThis is excellent news. Two weeks ago I looked into flynn and the various repos had very little activity compared to deis so I went with that for now. Edit: I posted this just FYI. I thought it'd be useful to know. Perhaps this is a consequence of splitting the project across a large number of repos, where some of them don't get many commits.
- Zariel 12y agooh please yes
- superuser2 12y agoFlynn itself costs $3,000/year at the most basic service level, before you even start covering infrastructure. Why shouldn't I just write what I need in a few hundred dollars worth of hours?
- danielsiders 12y agoFlynn co-founder here. Flynn is free open source software and always will be. Our managed service is for users who want to outsource the management of the cluster to us. There's no secret extra technology (it's just Flynn underneath), what you pay for is a professional ops team to manage your cluster. The service is also freemium (and free for the vast majority of users).
- superuser2 12y agoAh thanks, that was unclear. Is there documentation somewhere on how I can go about deploying Flynn on my own hardware?
- danielsiders 12y agoThe best option right now is to check out https://github.com/flynn/flynn-demo https://github.com/flynn/flynn-demo however we'll have some much better tools in a couple of weeks.
- presspot 12y agoDEIS is already a better solution than Flynn... just saying.
- netcraft 12y agoIt looks like Digital Ocean hopes to eventually support coreOS: http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocean/suggestions/4250154-suport-coreos-as-a-deployment-platform http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocea... I can only find a tweet that linode is "considering" it: https://twitter.com/linode/status/488045339023532032 https://twitter.com/linode/status/488045339023532032 anyone have any other information re vps vendor support?
- thejosh 12y agoDO promises A LOT of features they do not deliver.
- freyr 12y agoThere's a big difference between a hope and a promise.
- kelseyhightower 12y agoI personally think they will pull this one off, mainly because CoreOS will be providing support to the DO team and help however possible to make sure DO is added to the list of supported cloud vendors.
- thejosh 12y agoAh yes, because FreeBSD hasn't offered their help already.
- tiffanyh 12y agoDon't get your hope up. The #2 feature of all time requested is BSD support. DO "started" this feature over a year ago. http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean/suggestions/3232571-support-bsd-os http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digitalocean... Then on twitter recently they act like they aren't even working on BSD support. https://mobile.twitter.com/digitalocean/status/440744543856492544 https://mobile.twitter.com/digitalocean/status/4407445438564... TLDR: DO over promises on features they will deliver Edit: fixed link
- brynary 12y agoI'm very excited about this release. CoreOS, Docker and etcd are a great fit for one another. I love the separation of concerns that is provided. IMHO, the weakest part of CoreOS is fleet (https://github.com/coreos/fleet https://github.com/coreos/fleet). Compared to the other components in the stack, it just feels very inelegant. The systemd configuration syntax is complex and ugly. I wonder if there will be work invested to upgrade fleet to something that is as elegant as e.g. etcd/Docker/CoreOS itself.
- bcwaldon 12y agofleet definitely does not provide a nice integration with docker, and we're definitely trying to decide how we can provide a better integration story. And yes, systemd is complex, but with that complexity comes great power.
- brynary 12y agoGlad to hear you're thinking about this. Understanding the complexity provides power, but the tradeoff in this instance doesn't feel quite right. For example, etcd is a powerful primitive, and then more complex/sophisticated systems can be built on top of it. I wonder if an 80/20 solution that is simpler than fleet/systemd for pushing work into a CoreOS cluster would be a win, and then more complex systems (e.g. Kubernetes-esque orchestraction) could live on top of that.
- vidarh 12y agoI took one look at Kubernetes, and decided that for our purposes writing our own orchestration scripts from scratch would be simpler... So many of these systems are hopelessly overcomplicated.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rckclmbr 12y agoWe recently switched (like 2 weeks ago) our project from deployment on ubuntu servers via 'git pull' managed with supervisord to docker/coreos/fleet, and it's been epic. While coreos is built for large clusters, we run a 3 host cluster in ec2, and couldn't be happier. We switched from multiple servers running 1 instance of each service to load balancing all instances on these 3 hosts. This increased uptime, made deployment and management easier, and gave us the benefits of docker as well (verifying things work locally). There's only 2 real problems, both of them very minor: * fleet managing state. We've had to manually kill containers sometimes, and destroy systemd services before we could start it again. * all EC2 amis use ebs backed instances. We haven't used a higher-IOPs ebs backed instance because the only delay we see are in startup times (which doesn't matter, just longer rolling deploys). But an instance-backed ami would be nice.
- superuser2 12y agoHow do you handle persistent storage in a fault-tolerant way? You could technically pin your MySQL container to one host, but that seems to defeat the point of fleet. I considered trying to mount an iSCSI target to run the database from, but CoreOS doesn't have a working iSCSI initiator. I guess I could just run all the persistent stuff on a more traditional OS, but then why mess with CoreOS at all?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- rckclmbr 12y agoWe use Amazon RDS and S3. Only applications are run in the cluster.
- superuser2 12y agoYeah, this seems to be common. CoreOS seems to do a decent job as the application layer for something operating in a larger cloud that provides database and file storage as services, like Amazon or OpenStack. However, I think Docker has the potential to eliminate the need for infrastructure-level "clouds" to be so complex. The basic unit can be the container instead of the instance, so you don't need fancy automated instance management and all that. It'd be nice if you could also obviate the need for the other external services, and just run everything in containers on metal. I was really excited by CoreOS as a way to do this, but it seems to fighting me at every turn. It seems much easer to just wire together the REST APIs of several Ubuntu/CentOS nodes running Docker.
- outside1234 12y agoSuper great to see CoreOS making it to its first stable release. It really feels like the future. I've been reading about using vulcand to do frontend deploys and traffic management (http://coreos.com/blog/zero-downtime-frontend-deploys-vulcand/ http://coreos.com/blog/zero-downtime-frontend-deploys-vulcan...) and using ambassadors to do dynamic routing to backend stores (http://coreos.com/blog/docker-dynamic-ambassador-powered-by-etcd/ http://coreos.com/blog/docker-dynamic-ambassador-powered-by-...) But it is hard to get my head around this - has anyone actually tied all of these concepts together in a deployment that they've written up?
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- JohnTHaller 12y agoI'm a bit confused on the licensing here. CoreOS says it's Apache 2.0 licensed. But it also says its Linux. If it includes the Linux kernel, as it appears to, then those bits is licensed under the GPL and can not be re-licensed as Apache 2.0. So, it's a bit disingenuous to claim the whole package is Apache 2.0, since it isn't.
- rm445 12y agoHow relevant is the issue in practice though? It doesn't seem too likely that people are going to want to provide commercial forks of the whole project including the inux kernel. And it's pretty likely they could package their changes to the CoreOS code together with a stock kernel. The claim on the site is that "Code produced by the CoreOS team is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. " - Which seems reasonable enough.
- therealmarv 12y agorelevant for everybody who cares... if you run a business based on this software you care and should care.
- sciurus 12y agoWhere is the text you find confusing? What I found about licensing says "Code produced by the CoreOS team is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license." That's extremely clear about what the license applies to. http://coreos.com/products/ http://coreos.com/products/
- rando289 12y agoYes, for people who understand licensing stuff. For the many people who don't, they could say that 3rd party components of CoreOS are under various open source licenses, but the code they produce is Apache 2.0.
- alok-g 12y agoFrom the home page: "CoreOS is a new Linux distribution that ..." "CoreOS is Apache 2.0 licensed and ..."
- otterley 12y agoI'm puzzled as to why it's called "stable," while at the same time it appears to require btrfs-on-root to be useful (i.e. for hosting Docker containers) but that part is "experimental." Can someone from CoreOS clarify?
- philips 12y agoWhere is it marked experimental on the website? Almost certainly a mistake.
- robszumski 12y agoHe's talking about the PXE kernel option specifically: http://coreos.com/docs/running-coreos/bare-metal/booting-with-pxe/#setting-up-pxelinux.cfg http://coreos.com/docs/running-coreos/bare-metal/booting-wit...
- Lennie 12y agoDidn't (Open)Suse also use btrfs by default ? I've seen a talk by someone from Suse. He had a two part sentence. The first part was: btrfs is good and stable (paraphrasing) The second part was: when used with a single device So that means something like RAID1 on 2 disks is a still a bad idea. The way CoreOS ends up using btrfs is also on single devices I believe.
- devNoise 12y agoI've been using Vagrant/Virtual to run Ubuntu LTS for my Javascript dev env. Does it make sense switch to CoreOS? I generally run it as a headless server. No X-windows or GUI needed.
- therealmarv 12y agoStay for now on Ubuntu. Personally I would be sceptical for some time before the hype of a new Linux settles down. Ubuntu is proven for many many years and stands on the shoulders of giants named Debian. CoreOS is a pretty new shiny product which still needs to prove itself.
- devNoise 12y agoThanks. I'll keep an eye on it, but will hold off on making a switch.
- jimmcslim 12y agoI know Hyper-V isn't particularly sexy around these parts but it appears to work there as well. It doesn't support the Hyper-V integration services but that's par for the course for most Linux distributions.
- outside1234 12y agoLinux with Hyper-V is included in almost all modern Linux kernels as I understand it.
- lucasjans 12y agoHyper-V support interests, me, as I have a cluster of Windows hosts and would love to add CoreOS to the mix and deploy to my private cloud when needed. CoreOS is putting some effort into Hyper-V support. There's a way to get it working, though I haven't tried. Hopefully there's an elegant solution soon. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/coreos-dev/S3lbY2BV4bo https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/coreos-dev/S3lbY2BV4...