🚀 go-pugleaf

On 05/31/2013 10:32 PM, Mike Lin wrote:
> It sure would be nice if OPAM happened to provide install-able OCaml
> binaries, but as real production systems are an amalgam of many
> different moving parts, I think it would solve only one small part of a
> larger problem. I think an increasingly popular solution - which is
> taking Malcom's idea to its extreme logical conclusion - is to deploy
> virtual machine images.

In grid5000, you even deploy (not virtual) images.
But this is in an HPC context.

> In my company, for example, we build such images
> frequently as part of continuous integration and, during a deploy, just
> slowly cycle thousands of cloud instances over to a new image. LXC
> (chroot on steroids) is another popular way to instantiate this strategy
> with less overhead, and we've also experimented with CDE
> (http://www.pgbovine.net/cde.html).
> I understand Facebook somehow manages to compile one ginormous binary,
> though:
> http://arstechnica.com/business/2012/04/exclusive-a-behind-the-scenes-look-at-facebook-release-engineering/
>
>
> On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Malcolm Matalka <mmatalka@gmail.com
> <mailto:mmatalka@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     No I'm not suggesting building on every machine.  I am suggesting using
>     a Build Server, such as Jenkins or Bamboo or Hydra, to build your system
>     and package it, then you can deploy it through another mechanism.
>
>     Opam generating RPMs (or packages for you) I believe is wrong because:
>
>     1 - There are a lot of options when it comes to building a package.
>     What should the init scripts look like?  Where should the various files
>     go?  What about configs, etc.  These are issues opam should not concern
>     it self with.  On top of that, there are already tools for building a
>     RPM packages from a directory structure, such as fpm.
>
>     2 - Which package systems should Opam support?  RPM, Deb?  I use Nix,
>     why don't you support me?  Some other guy uses something else, what
>     about him?  I would predict a lot of heated and ultimately fruitless ML
>     discussions about people wanting their package support in a
>     particular way.
>
>     3 - *Maybe* Opam should support exporting the closure of a package to an
>     external directory structure, then you can package it in any way you
>     want.
>
>     However, IME, and someone with more knowledge in Ocaml please correct
>     me, if you are deploying to production on a lot of machines I don't
>     really see why you would want to install Ocaml libraries to those
>     machines.  Ocaml libraries are statically linked so copying the produced
>     binary should be sufficient.  This is how I deploy Ocaml apps to the
>     clusters I have worked on, with success.
>
>     Perhaps I am missing something?
>
>     If you want a 'deploy' command to be added to Opam that takes a
>     configuration and pushes builds to machines, I am vehemently opposed to
>     that.  If you want a mechanism for exporting a package closure someplace
>     else that you can package, I am less opposed to that.  But I don't
>     develop Opam so my opinion doesn't really matter :)
>
>     /M
>
>     Chet Murthy <murthy.chet@gmail.com <mailto:murthy.chet@gmail.com>>
>     writes:
>
>      > I'm glad we're having this discussion.
>      >
>      > On Thursday, May 30, 2013 06:52:25 AM Malcolm Matalka wrote:
>      >> I think out would be wrong for opam to try to solve this
>     problem.  There
>      >> are already many tools available for deploying (Ansible, Puppet,
>     Chef,
>      >> Fabric, Capistrano).  Such a later can be build on top of opam
>     of need be.
>      >
>      > I think this is incorrect.  Let me explain.
>      >
>      > (1) when we look at deploying complex collections of code/libs/data
>      > onto multiple machines, usually we assume that the code has already
>      > been built.
>      >
>      > (2) but let's first dispatch the case where the code has -not- been
>      > built.  In such a case, I presume you're proposing that the code be
>      > built on each machine, yes?
>      >
>      >   (a) this drastically increases the CPU required to perform upgrades
>      >   and deploys
>      >
>      >   (b) but far, far, far more importantly, it means that on each
>      >   machine, a nontrivially complex script runs that builds the actual
>      >   installed binaries.  If that script contains -any-
>     nondeterminism or
>      >   environmental sensitivity, it could produce different results on
>      >   different machines.  The technical term is "version skew".
>      >
>      > In scale-out systems, this sort of "skew" is absolutely fatal,
>     because
>      > it means that machines/nodes are not a priori interchangeable.  And
>      > all of fast-fail fault-tolerance depends on nodes being
>      > interchangeable.
>      >
>      > (3) But let's say that what you really mean is that we should use
>      > tools like puppet/chef/capistrano to copy collections of
>      > binaries/libs/data to target machines and install them.  These
>      > scripts/recipes are written by some person.  You could have equally
>      > well suggested that that person build Debian packages (or RPMs) of
>      > each OPAM package, writing out all the descriptions and manifests.
>      >
>      > And manually specifying all dependencies and requiremeents.
>      >
>      > Either way, that person is doing a job that OPAM already does a lot
>      > of, and does quite well.  Gosh, wouldn't it be nice if OPAM could
>      > generate those RPMs?  Well, it's a little more complicated than that,
>      > but really, not much more.  The complexity comes in that you -might-
>      > (I'm not saying I have this part figured out yet) want ways to
>      > -generalize- (say) the camlp5 package so that it could be
>     installed on
>      > many different base OPAM installations.
>      >
>      > But setting aside that nice-to-have, imagine that OPAM knew how to
>      > generate RPMs from each package it installed, and from the ocaml+opam
>      > base itself.  You combine those, and you can:
>      >
>      >   (i) install ocaml, opam, and a bunch of packages
>      >
>      >   (ii) push a button, and out come a pile of RPMs, along with
>      >   dependencies amongst them (and hopefully on the relevant
>      >   environmental RPMs (e.g., libpcre-dev for pcre-ocaml, etc) so that
>      >   you can just stuff those RPMs into a YUM repo, go to a second box,
>      >   and say
>      >
>      >     "yum install opam ocaml pcre-ocaml"
>      >
>      >   and get everything slurped down and installed, just as if OPAM had
>      >   installed it all, package-by-package.
>      >
>      > --chet--
>      >
>      > P.S. And this doesn't even get into the unsuitability of chef/puppet
>      > for managing software package installation.  There's a reason that no
>      > distro uses such schemes to install the large and complex sets of
>      > packages needed to run amodern Linux box.  And why there is no Linux
>      > version of Microsorft's "DLL Hell".  Linux distros by and large (and
>      > esp Debian and Ubuntu) have worked hard to make package installation
>      > foolproof -- and chef/puppet etc are anything but.
>
>     --
>     Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
>     https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
>     Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
>     Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>
>


-- 
Caml-list mailing list.  Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-list
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs