Hello everyone,
As pointed out earlier this month in IRC wikimedia-k8s-sig, next week's
Kubernetes SIG meeting has already a topic that was brought in by
management and it is the usage of Alpine images in our production workloads.
Since that IRC message and today, Ben Tullis has been gracious enough to
share some information regarding that. I am summarizing below for the
group's convenience so that interested parties show up prepared
*https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T303381
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T303381> is the driver for this, as it
took me six months to get the upgrade to DataHub done:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T329514
<https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T329514>. The idea for alpine was just
one possible solution of how we could have gotten around the issues with
the build process described in the task above. However, now the datahub
building scripts are now effectively unforked from upstream, allowing
significant progress in building it with Blubber and Debian from pristine
sources. I am much happier with things as they are right now.*
While the immediate problem that led to this request seems to have been
addressed adequately, I think that we have much to gain as a group
discussing this as we can disseminate knowledge abouts pros and cons, in a
variety of fields, regarding the type of images we choose and document our
discussion and findings in more permanent form that can be easily referred
to in the future.
Regards,
--
Alexandros Kosiaris
Principal Site Reliability Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
Hello everyone,
I am sending this to gauge interest in attending Kubernetes training
sessions. We currently are mostly focused in courses like
https://training.linuxfoundation.org/training/kubernetes-fundamentals-lfs25….
The exact details (online vs instructor led, with or without an exam at the
end) are still being worked on.
If you are interested, please do reply to me. Let me repeat, that this is
to gauge interest, it's not binding for you.
--
Alexandros Kosiaris
Principal Site Reliability Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation
What is the general thought process of the group around using upstream
helm charts?
In my effort to stand up Jaeger I have been using the upstream charts to
test locally in Minikube. Thus far they seem to work pretty well, my
current work in progress may be found here,
https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/repos/sre/jaeger-minikube.
Giuseppe mentioned concerns with the quality of upstream charts. How
does one assess the quality, other than through use?
Hello everyone,
Per one of my action items from our last meeting, I 've created the
following:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Kubernetes_SIG
I consider it a draft, but good enough that I decided to be bold the wiki
way and just publish it. In the same spirit, feel free to amend. Meetings
notes from our last 2 meetings have been published as well and are included
at the end of the page.
Furthermore, the topic for our next meeting (having 4 votes) is going to be:
- Persistent Storage for workloads in our clusters
Runner ups, with 3 votes each (and candidates for our next discussions)
are:
-
Expected Kubernetes usage/roadmap/vision/plan per team
-
Kubernetes versioning discussion
I 've started drafting an agenda in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/18-dlIEOJjWqOXQ7doW7izYoa7-gLDAkQCVwQJwf…
, feel free to contribute.
--
Alexandros Kosiaris
Principal Site Reliability Engineer
Wikimedia Foundation