Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (1324 mails)

< Previous Next >
[opensuse-factory] Re: leap42 - minimum server pattern has become too minimum
  • From: Jim Henderson <hendersj@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2015 16:52:59 +0000 (UTC)
  • Message-id: <n0dolb$fa9$>
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 13:01:42 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:

On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 12:38 PM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@xxxxxxxxx>
On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 12:19:30 -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:

Yes, but call the pattern "container minimal". Calling it "server"
makes it seem like it's for a... you know... server. Which elicits
thoughts of a physical machine in my language.

It doesn't in mine. Certainly, I have had occasion to create virtual
servers where having YaST also was something that wasn't necessary
because it was purpose-built for a specific purpose.

When using virtualization orchestration technologies (for example), a
really, really minimal image is essential to being able to (for
move a VM from one host to another when doing load balancing of compute

Alright. But, VMs still require kernels, and that's the critical
distinction I was trying to make.

Containers don't.

In essence, a container is a special case of environment that would be
wrong to conflate with the case of full machines, either physical or
virtual. Usually, a system can ignore the presence of a hypervisor,
but a container cannot ignore the host it runs on. In fact, I would bet
it's very tricky getting an openSUSE "minimal server" running in a
CentOS docker.

So separate patterns seem make sense IMO.

I don't entirely disagree with that assessment.

But there is a point where having lots of different patterns would create
more confusion (not to mention maintenance).

Maybe a better approach is needed - layered patterns or something like


Jim Henderson
Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits

To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread