6 5

[alpine-devel] alpine 2.6.0_rc1 is out - what do do with scst and vserver isos

Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20130501142905.2661cf85@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org>
Sender timestamp
1367411345
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
Hi,

I have uploaded the 2.6.0_rc1 isos.

I wonder if we can kill the alpine-scst iso now?

What do we do with alpine-vserver isos?

Alternatives:
1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
2) we ship it with an old kernel
  2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
  2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
  2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.

Personally, I think I would prefer alternative 2.1. We still use
vserver in production (build servers) and we don't have any good
migration plan for vserver -> LXC.

I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.

What do you think?

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Nathan Angelacos
Details
Message ID
<51812C3E.1020108@alpinelinux.org>
In-Reply-To
<20130501142905.2661cf85@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1367419966
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On 05/01/2013 05:29 AM, Natanael Copa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 
> What do we do with alpine-vserver isos?
> 
> Alternatives:
> 1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
> 2) we ship it with an old kernel
>   2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
>   2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
>   2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.
> 
> Personally, I think I would prefer alternative 2.1. We still use
> vserver in production (build servers) and we don't have any good
> migration plan for vserver -> LXC.
> 
> I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
> fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
> kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.
> 
> What do you think?

Since I'm not doing the work... 2.1 is fine with me; otherwise I'd vote
for 1

LXC is in mainline kernel
LXC works better (imho) for the kinds of things we use vserver for
But it is work to move our production servers off of vserver




---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Leonardo Arena
Details
Message ID
<1367412191.8951.10.camel@df1844j>
In-Reply-To
<20130501142905.2661cf85@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1367412191
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 14:29 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have uploaded the 2.6.0_rc1 isos.
> 
> I wonder if we can kill the alpine-scst iso now?

I think yes. We have iSCSI target support (TCM) in default kernel and
its related target-cli util since v2.5 iirc. I'm running a box with TCM
since few months without any problem.


> What do we do with alpine-vserver isos?
> 
> Alternatives:
> 1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
> 2) we ship it with an old kernel
>   2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
>   2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
>   2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.
> 
> Personally, I think I would prefer alternative 2.1. We still use
> vserver in production (build servers) and we don't have any good
> migration plan for vserver -> LXC.
> 
> I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
> fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
> kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.
> 
> What do you think?

+1

- leo



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
Carlo Landmeter
Details
Message ID
<CA+cSEmO+9bBY-XH1X9pgWXJoAHVysm1ozCK-8gW5zbWefoC5og@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<1367412191.8951.10.camel@df1844j> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1367413018
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Leonardo Arena <rnalrd@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 2013-05-01 at 14:29 +0200, Natanael Copa wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have uploaded the 2.6.0_rc1 isos.
> >
> > I wonder if we can kill the alpine-scst iso now?
>
> I think yes. We have iSCSI target support (TCM) in default kernel and
> its related target-cli util since v2.5 iirc. I'm running a box with TCM
> since few months without any problem.
>
> I've stopped maintaining it. We can just drop it in favor of TCM.

>
> > What do we do with alpine-vserver isos?
> >
> > Alternatives:
> > 1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
> > 2) we ship it with an old kernel
> >   2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
> >   2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
> >   2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.
> >
> > Personally, I think I would prefer alternative 2.1. We still use
> > vserver in production (build servers) and we don't have any good
> > migration plan for vserver -> LXC.
> >
> > I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
> > fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
> > kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> +1
>
> - leo
>
>
>
> ---
> Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
> Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
> ---
>
>
Carlo
Natanael Copa
Details
Message ID
<20130501165608.2ed192d0@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org>
In-Reply-To
<201305011924.55832.vkrishn4@gmail.com> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1367420168
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:24:55 +0530
"V.Krishn" <vkrishn4@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Alternatives:
> > 1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
> > 2) we ship it with an old kernel
> >   2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
> >   2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
> >   2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.

> Can we have a little insight on VServer / LXC:
> 1. Which is stable and actively developed.

stable: vserver

(very) actively developed: LXC

> 2. Which relatively uses more of recent kernels new advancements.

LXC

> 3. Does adding LXC to alpine  also require patches like VServer does.

No. LXC is in mainline kernel. Vserver requires patching. This is main reason why we want move to LXC in the long run.

> 4. For 2.3 above - efforts involved.

i think for now I would have to do the porting myself. I don't know how much work it is. It might be fairly straighfroward, it might be very messy (i expect the latter due to namespace improvements in recent kernels)

> 5. Migration issues.

Migration does not need to be very difficult. I think it it should be relatively easy to make a migration script that takes the vserver config and converts it to LXC. 
 
> > 
> > I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
> > fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
> > kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.
> 
> Will this be same for coming Alpine releases ?

This would only be for vserver kernel for now. And if we go this route, it will be what we do with alpine-vserver as long as we maintain it. (1-1.5 years ahead)

Basically, I think nobody should set up any new vserver hosts. The alpine releases would only be for maintaining the existing servers.

Hm. Maybe we should just kill alpine-vserver isos now, and tell vserver users to stick to alpine-vserver-2.4.y, which we then maintain for as long as needed? (1 year more). It means we will spit out new v2.4 releases for another year.

The vserver hosts will not get any of the new features, but those are supposed to be as minimal as possible anyways...

-nc


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
V.Krishn
Details
Message ID
<201305011924.55832.vkrishn4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20130501142905.2661cf85@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1367416495
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 05:59:05 PM Natanael Copa wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have uploaded the 2.6.0_rc1 isos.
> 
> I wonder if we can kill the alpine-scst iso now?
> 
> What do we do with alpine-vserver isos?
> 
> Alternatives:
> 1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
> 2) we ship it with an old kernel
>   2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
>   2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
>   2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.
> 
> Personally, I think I would prefer alternative 2.1. We still use
> vserver in production (build servers) and we don't have any good
> migration plan for vserver -> LXC.

Can we have a little insight on VServer / LXC:
1. Which is stable and actively developed.
2. Which relatively uses more of recent kernels new advancements.
3. Does adding LXC to alpine  also require patches like VServer does.
4. For 2.3 above - efforts involved.
5. Migration issues. 

> 
> I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
> fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
> kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.

Will this be same for coming Alpine releases ?

-- 
Regards,
V.Krishn



---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---
V.Krishn
Details
Message ID
<201305012035.17936.vkrishn4@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To
<20130501165608.2ed192d0@ncopa-desktop.alpinelinux.org> (view parent)
Sender timestamp
1367420717
DKIM signature
missing
Download raw message
On Wednesday, May 01, 2013 08:26:08 PM Natanael Copa wrote:
> On Wed, 1 May 2013 19:24:55 +0530
> 
> "V.Krishn" <vkrishn4@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Alternatives:
> > > 1) we kill it and tell users to use LXC
> > > 2) we ship it with an old kernel
> > > 
> > >   2.1) downgrade to LTS 3.4.y
> > >   2.2) do nothing, keep the current, outdated 3.6.y
> > >   2.3) we try port vserver to 3.9 or same as grsec.
> > 
> > Can we have a little insight on VServer / LXC:
> > 1. Which is stable and actively developed.
> 
> stable: vserver
> 
> (very) actively developed: LXC
> 
> > 2. Which relatively uses more of recent kernels new advancements.
> 
> LXC
> 
> > 3. Does adding LXC to alpine  also require patches like VServer does.
> 
> No. LXC is in mainline kernel. Vserver requires patching. This is main
> reason why we want move to LXC in the long run.
> 
> > 4. For 2.3 above - efforts involved.
> 
> i think for now I would have to do the porting myself. I don't know how
> much work it is. It might be fairly straighfroward, it might be very messy
> (i expect the latter due to namespace improvements in recent kernels)

I would suggest to put the effort to moving more wanted features like zfs to 
mains.

> 
> > 5. Migration issues.
> 
> Migration does not need to be very difficult. I think it it should be
> relatively easy to make a migration script that takes the vserver config
> and converts it to LXC.

then LXC :-)

> 
> > > I also don't think there are many vserver users that wants the new
> > > fancy stuff in newer kernels, so i think reverting to an older 3.4.y
> > > kernel might work. Sticking to LTS kernels saves us for much work.
> > 
> > Will this be same for coming Alpine releases ?
> 
> This would only be for vserver kernel for now. And if we go this route, it
> will be what we do with alpine-vserver as long as we maintain it. (1-1.5
> years ahead)
> 
> Basically, I think nobody should set up any new vserver hosts. The alpine
> releases would only be for maintaining the existing servers.
> 
> Hm. Maybe we should just kill alpine-vserver isos now, and tell vserver
> users to stick to alpine-vserver-2.4.y, which we then maintain for as long
> as needed? (1 year more). It means we will spit out new v2.4 releases for
> another year.

If point 2.1 is not much work, release with 3.4x (ltsi) with NOTE of being 
discontinued with coming release+1.
Discontinuing the current alpine-vserver without a prior note does not seem 
quite ok.

> 
> The vserver hosts will not get any of the new features, but those are
> supposed to be as minimal as possible anyways...
> 
> -nc
> 
> 

-- 
Regards.
V.Krishn


---
Unsubscribe:  alpine-devel+unsubscribe@lists.alpinelinux.org
Help:         alpine-devel+help@lists.alpinelinux.org
---