5 ms·

Hi! Yes, pfs is designed with the "batteries included but removable" ethos in mind and is only loosely tied to CoreOS. Getting it to run on Kubernetes and Mesos

Hi! Yes, pfs is designed with the "batteries included but removable" ethos in mind and is only loosely tied to CoreOS. Getting it to run on Kubernetes and Mesos is something we're definitely going to do at some point in the near future. I've set up an issue here: https://github.com/pachyderm/pfs/issues/29 https://github.com/pachyderm/pfs/issues/29 for tracking this effort feel free to stop by and discuss! Also if you'd prefer email drop me a line at jdoliner@pachyderm.io.

curun1r 12y ago
I had the same reaction to seeing CoreOS in the intro as the other poster...I'd love to play with this, but there's no way that I'd get approval from our security folks to use this in any serious capacity. If you're looking for other tools to support, consider Consul, which should have an almost identical interface as etcd. Also, I'm not sure if ECS and/or Docker Swarm would satisfy the rest of the CoreOS responsibilities, but those are the two that it looks likely that we'll be able to use.
- jdoliner 12y ago
  Hi!! Just to clarify, is CoreOS in general a no go for you guys and is that due to its newness or something else? I'm unfortunately pretty ignorant on what the approval process looks like for security folks. The good news is that pfs is designed to be loosely coupled and we're definitely going to look in to support for a variety of deployment methods. Consul in particular looks like it would be a very straightforward to add, I've created an issue for it here so you can follow it: https://github.com/pachyderm/pfs/issues/31 https://github.com/pachyderm/pfs/issues/31. I'm hopeful about ECS as well it smells like it might be the simplest thing that could work for pfs. I'd love it if we could not even deal with a notion of machines in pfs deployments.
  - hobofan 12y ago
    I can't speak for curun1r, but the requirement for a whole OS is pretty restricting, especially when you already have a whole environment with configuration management etc. based on another OS in which you invested a lot of time. From personal experience (granted this is from the early days of CoreOS), CoreOS is only really viable if you are going for a hardcorde "dockerize everything" approach, which has too much unpolished points as of now. As of now I'd rather use a rigid base (whatever OS, chef, mesos, marathon) with the more fluid parts (services inside docker, pachyderm, etc.) on top.
  - curun1r 12y ago
    For us, RHEL is the corporate standard. The Corporate Security Overlords put their hooks into it and we're forced to use their images. It's basically impossible to push for anything that doesn't include that. The only exceptions are Amazon products (RDS/ELB/Lambda and such). Thanks for adding Consul to your list. We like it more than etcd and it would be annoying to have to run both.

curun1r 12y ago

I had the same reaction to seeing CoreOS in the intro as the other poster...I'd love to play with this, but there's no way that I'd get approval from our security folks to use this in any serious capacity. If you're looking for other tools to support, consider Consul, which should have an almost identical interface as etcd. Also, I'm not sure if ECS and/or Docker Swarm would satisfy the rest of the CoreOS responsibilities, but those are the two that it looks likely that we'll be able to use.

jdoliner 12y ago
Hi!! Just to clarify, is CoreOS in general a no go for you guys and is that due to its newness or something else? I'm unfortunately pretty ignorant on what the approval process looks like for security folks. The good news is that pfs is designed to be loosely coupled and we're definitely going to look in to support for a variety of deployment methods. Consul in particular looks like it would be a very straightforward to add, I've created an issue for it here so you can follow it: https://github.com/pachyderm/pfs/issues/31 https://github.com/pachyderm/pfs/issues/31. I'm hopeful about ECS as well it smells like it might be the simplest thing that could work for pfs. I'd love it if we could not even deal with a notion of machines in pfs deployments.
- hobofan 12y ago
  I can't speak for curun1r, but the requirement for a whole OS is pretty restricting, especially when you already have a whole environment with configuration management etc. based on another OS in which you invested a lot of time. From personal experience (granted this is from the early days of CoreOS), CoreOS is only really viable if you are going for a hardcorde "dockerize everything" approach, which has too much unpolished points as of now. As of now I'd rather use a rigid base (whatever OS, chef, mesos, marathon) with the more fluid parts (services inside docker, pachyderm, etc.) on top.
- curun1r 12y ago
  For us, RHEL is the corporate standard. The Corporate Security Overlords put their hooks into it and we're forced to use their images. It's basically impossible to push for anything that doesn't include that. The only exceptions are Amazon products (RDS/ELB/Lambda and such). Thanks for adding Consul to your list. We like it more than etcd and it would be annoying to have to run both.