[Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor

[Jiri Kremser]

Hi Matt,
 thanks for response.

PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
better ways to handle it.

I am trying to figure out how to monitor wildfly in the openshift. If I am
not mistaken all the metric ids contain the feed id, feed id (at least for
wildfly is autogenerated if it's not provided in the xml config). If
container/pod is killed and re-created its history is lost with the feed
id. That's why I thought the Pet Sets with persistent ids can help.

jk

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Matt Wringe <mwringe at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jiri Kremser" <jkremser at redhat.com>
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, 13 October, 2016 8:21:10 AM
> > Subject: [Hawkular-dev] OpenShift Pet vs Cattle metaphor
> >
> > Hello,
> > today, I was on L&L about storage in OpenShift and I learn interesting
> thing.
> > I always thought, that everything needs to be immutable and stateless and
> > all the state needs to be handled by means of NFS persistent volumes.
> > Luckily, there is a feature in Kubernetess (since 1.3) that allows the
> PODs
> > to be treated as pets. It's called PetSet [1] and it assigns a unique ID
> > (and persistent DNS record) to a POD that runs in this "mode".
>
> For OpenShift, we would have moved to using PetSets for our Cassandra pod,
> but its not a fully supported feature yet. In the next version we will be
> moving over to using it.
>
> It will make changing the cluster size for Cassandra nodes a lot easier
> once we can use this.
>
> >
> > Common use-case for PetSet is a set of pods with a relational DBs that
> uses
> > some kind of master-slave replication and slaves needs to know the
> master's
> > address. But it can be used for anything. We can use the hostname as the
> > feed id for instance.
> >
> > I don't know how much this will be popular because it kind of defeats the
> > purpose of immutable infrastructure but it can save us some work with the
> > feed identity. And of course we need to support also the "normal" POD
> > scenario.
>
> PetSets are meant for clustering of pods which have persistent storage. If
> this is not your use case, what exactly are you trying to do? There may be
> better ways to handle it.
>
> >
> > [1]: http://kubernetes.io/docs/user-guide/petset/
> >
> > jk
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/attachments/20161019/eeeeea05/attachment.html