Date   

Re: Addressing buildpack size

Mike Dalessio
 

Hi Wayne,

Thanks for thinking about this problem.

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

Because of very good compatibility between versions (post 1.X) I would
like to make a motion to do the following:

Split the buildpack:

have the default golang buildpack track the latest golang version

Then handle older versions in one of two ways, either:

a) have a large secondary for older versions

or

b) have multiple, one for each version of golang, users can specify a
specific URL if they care about specific versions.

This would improve space/time considerations for operations.
Which operations did you have in mind? Currently the DEAs download *all*
the buildpacks, so it won't save that operation when DEAs roll. Let me know
if you're thinking of something else?


Personally I would prefer b) because it allows you to enable supporting
older go versions out of the box by design but still keeping each golang
buildpack small.
I personally would like to see buildpacks have the option of being
stack-specific.

So the Ruby buildpack, for example, wouldn't have to package binaries for
both `cflinuxfs2` and `lucid64` (though this is complicated by the
additional presence of stack-agnostic packages like JRuby).

But if we did this, then you only have to use the buildpacks for the
stack(s) in your CF deployment. Because, really, asking a buildpack to
contain binaries for every supported stack isn't really a scalable
practice; though we get away with it in a world with only 1 or 2 stacks.



~Wayne

Wayne E. Seguin <wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com>
CTO ; Stark & Wayne, LLC

On May 4, 2015, at 12:40 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Hi Wayne,

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

What an incredible step in the right direction, Awesome!!!

Out of curiosity, why is the go buildpack still quite so large?
Thanks for asking this question.

Currently we're including the following binary dependencies in
`go-buildpack`:

```
cache $ ls -lSh *_go*
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.2.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.2.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.3.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
```

One question we should ask, I think, is: should we still be supporting
golang 1.1 and 1.2? Dropping those versions would cut the size of the
buildpack in (approximately) half.





On May 1, 2015, at 11:54 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Skinny buildpacks have been cut for go, nodejs, php, python and ruby
buildpacks.

| | current | previous |
|--------+---------+----------|
| go | 442MB | 633MB |
| nodejs | 69MB | 417MB |
| php | 804MB | 1.1GB |
| python | 454MB | 654MB |
| ruby | 365MB | 1.3GB |
|--------+---------+----------|
| total | 2.1GB | 4.1GB |

for an aggregate 51% reduction in size. Details follow.
Next Steps

I recognize that every cloud operator may have a different policy on what
versions of interpreters and libraries they want to support, based on the
specific requirements of their users.

These buildpacks reflect a "bare mininum" policy for a cloud to be
operable, and I do not expect these buildpacks to be adopted as-is by many
operators.

These buildpacks have not yet been added to cf-release, specifically so
that the community can prepare their own buildpacks if necessary.

Over the next few days, the buildpacks core team will ship documentation
and tooling to assist you in packaging specific dependencies for your
instance of CF. I'll start a new thread on this list early next week to
communicate this information.
Call to Action

In the meantime, please think about whether the policy implemented in
these buildpacks ("last two patches (or teenies) on all supported
major.minor releases") is suitable for your users; and if not, think about
what dependencies you'll ideally be supporting.
go-buildpack v1.3.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 633MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0> to
442MB <https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>):

- golang 1.4.{1,2}
- golang 1.3.{2,3}
- golang 1.2.{1,2}
- golang 1.1.{1,2}

nodejs-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 83% from 417MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.1>
to 69MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- 0.8.{27,28}
- 0.9.{11,12}
- 0.10.{37,38}
- 0.11.{15,16}
- 0.12.{1,2}

php-buildpack v3.2.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Size reduced 27% from 1.1GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.1.1> to
803MB <https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>
.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/blob/v3.2.0/manifest.yml>)

*PHP*:

- 5.6.{6,7}
- 5.5.{22,23}
- 5.4.{38,39}

*HHVM* (lucid64 stack):

- 3.2.0

*HHVM* (cflinuxfs2 stack):

- 3.5.{0,1}
- 3.6.{0,1}

*Apache HTTPD*:

- 2.4.12

*nginx*:

- 1.7.10
- 1.6.2
- 1.5.13

python-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 654MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0>
to 454MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
)

- 2.7.{8,9}
- 3.2.{4,5}
- 3.3.{5,6}
- 3.4.{2,3}

ruby-buildpack v1.4.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Size reduced 71% from 1.3GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.1> to
365MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/blob/v1.4.0/manifest.yml>
)

*MRI*:

- 2.2.{1,2}
- 2.1.{5,6}
- 2.0.0p645

*JRuby*:

- ruby-1.9.3-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.0.0-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.2.0-jruby-9.0.0.0.pre1


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Addressing buildpack size
To: vcap-dev(a)cloudfoundry.org


Hello vcap-dev!

This email details a proposed change to how Cloud Foundry buildpacks are
packaged, with respect to the ever-increasing number of binary dependencies
being cached within them.

This proposal's permanent residence is here:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack-packager/issues/4

Feel free to comment there or reply to this email.
------------------------------
Buildpack SizesWhere we are today

Many of you have seen, and possibly been challenged by, the enormous
sizes of some of the buildpacks that are currently shipping with cf-release.

Here's the state of the world right now, as of v205:

php-buildpack: 1.1G
ruby-buildpack: 922M
go-buildpack: 675M
python-buildpack: 654M
nodejs-buildpack: 403M
----------------------
total: 3.7G

These enormous sizes are the result of the current policy of packaging
every-version-of-everything-ever-supported ("EVOEES") within the buildpack.

Most recently, this problem was exacerbated by the fact that buildpacks
now contain binaries for two rootfses.
Why this is a problem

If continued, buildpacks will only continue to increase in size, leading
to longer and longer build and deploy times, longer test times, slacker
feedback loops, and therefore less frequent buildpack releases.

Additionally, this also means that we're shipping versions of
interpreters, web servers, and libraries that are deprecated, insecure, or
both. Feedback from CF users has made it clear that many companies view
this as an unnecessary security risk.

This policy is clearly unsustainable.
What we can do about it

There are many things being discussed to ameliorate the impact that
buildpack size is having on the operations of CF.

Notably, Onsi has proposed a change to buildpack caching, to improve
Diego staging times (link to proposal
<https://github.com/pivotal-cf-experimental/diego-dev-notes/blob/master/proposals/better-buildpack-caching.md>
).

However, there is an immediate solution available, which addresses both
the size concerns as well as the security concern: packaging fewer binary
dependencies within the buildpack.
The proposal

I'm proposing that we reduce the binary dependencies in each buildpack in
a very specific way.

Aside on terms I'll use below:

- Versions of the form "1.2.3" are broken down as: MAJOR.MINOR.TEENY.
Many language ecosystems refer to the "TEENY" as "PATCH" interchangeably,
but we're going to use "TEENY" in this proposal.
- We'll assume that TEENY gets bumped for API/ABI compatible changes.
- We'll assume that MINOR and MAJOR get bumped when there are API/ABI
*incompatible* changes.

I'd like to move forward soon with the following changes:

1. For language interpreters/compilers, we'll package the two
most-recent TEENY versions on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
2. For all other dependencies, we'll package only the single
most-recent TEENY version on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
3. We will discontinue packaging versions of dependencies that have
been deprecated.
4. We will no longer provide "EVOEES" buildpack releases.
5. We will no longer provide "online" buildpack releases, which
download dependencies from the public internet.
6. We will document the process, and provide tooling, for CF
operators to build their own buildpacks, choosing the dependencies that
their organization wants to support or creating "online" buildpacks at
operators' discretion.

An example for #1 is that we'll go from packaging 34 versions of node v0.10.x
to only packaging two: 0.10.37 and 0.10.38.

An example for #2 is that we'll go from packaging 3 versions of nginx 1.5
in the PHP buildpack to only packaging one: 1.5.12.

An example for #3 is that we'll discontinue packaging ruby 1.9.3 in the
ruby-buildpack, which reached end-of-life in February 2015.
Outcomes

With these changes, the total buildpack size will be reduced greatly. As
an example, we expect the ruby-buildpack size to go from 922M to 338M.

We also want to set the expectation that, as new interpreter versions are
released, either for new features or (more urgently) for security fixes,
we'll release new buildpacks much more quickly than we do today. My hope is
that we'll be able to do it within 24 hours of a new release.
Planning

These changes will be relatively easy to make, since all the buildpacks
are now using a manifest.yml file to declare what's being packaged. We
expect to be able to complete this work within the next two weeks.

Stories are in the Tracker backlog under the Epic named
"skinny-buildpacks", which you can see here:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/epic/show/1747328

------------------------------

Please let me know how these changes will impact you and your
organizations, and let me know of any counter-proposals or variations you'd
like to consider.

Thanks,

-mike



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev



Re: Addressing buildpack size

Mike Dalessio
 

Jack,

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Jack Cai <greensight(a)gmail.com> wrote:

+1

Thanks for the great work!

Over the next few days, the buildpacks core team will ship documentation
and tooling to assist you in packaging specific dependencies for your
instance of CF. I'll start a new thread on this list early next week to
communicate this information.

I hope this will be easy to customize as part of a bosh release
configuration. Specifically, it would be even better if the cloud operator
can customize some of the binary download URLs in the configuration, so
that they can use their own binaries. As I know, many enterprises only use
legal-cleared binary versions of open source components, hosted inside
their firewall. I understand today this can be achieved by modifying the
manifest.yml in each buildpack. But it would greater if it can be done
through some build/package configuration.
You're absolutely right, it would be tremendous if it were possible to do
this on the BOSH manifest level. I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but
there is obviously quite a bit of work to get there.

The good news, though, is that the best first step has already been made,
which was to extract dependencies out of the upstream buildpack code, and
declare it in a buildpack manifest.

In the meantime, we'll do our best to make sure operator tools are
available and easy to use to manipulate the buildpacks manifests and create
custom buildpacks.




Jack





On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 1:28 PM, Onsi Fakhouri <ofakhouri(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

the go community tends to move fast to adopt the latest versions of go.
i imagine we can drop 1.1 and 1.2 without impacting most people.

anyone on the list experience otherwise?

onsi

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io>
wrote:

Hi Wayne,

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

What an incredible step in the right direction, Awesome!!!

Out of curiosity, why is the go buildpack still quite so large?
Thanks for asking this question.

Currently we're including the following binary dependencies in
`go-buildpack`:

```
cache $ ls -lSh *_go*
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.2.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.2.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.3.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
```

One question we should ask, I think, is: should we still be supporting
golang 1.1 and 1.2? Dropping those versions would cut the size of the
buildpack in (approximately) half.





On May 1, 2015, at 11:54 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Skinny buildpacks have been cut for go, nodejs, php, python and ruby
buildpacks.

| | current | previous |
|--------+---------+----------|
| go | 442MB | 633MB |
| nodejs | 69MB | 417MB |
| php | 804MB | 1.1GB |
| python | 454MB | 654MB |
| ruby | 365MB | 1.3GB |
|--------+---------+----------|
| total | 2.1GB | 4.1GB |

for an aggregate 51% reduction in size. Details follow.
Next Steps

I recognize that every cloud operator may have a different policy on
what versions of interpreters and libraries they want to support, based on
the specific requirements of their users.

These buildpacks reflect a "bare mininum" policy for a cloud to be
operable, and I do not expect these buildpacks to be adopted as-is by many
operators.

These buildpacks have not yet been added to cf-release, specifically
so that the community can prepare their own buildpacks if necessary.

Over the next few days, the buildpacks core team will ship
documentation and tooling to assist you in packaging specific dependencies
for your instance of CF. I'll start a new thread on this list early next
week to communicate this information.
Call to Action

In the meantime, please think about whether the policy implemented in
these buildpacks ("last two patches (or teenies) on all supported
major.minor releases") is suitable for your users; and if not, think about
what dependencies you'll ideally be supporting.
go-buildpack v1.3.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 633MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0> to
442MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- golang 1.4.{1,2}
- golang 1.3.{2,3}
- golang 1.2.{1,2}
- golang 1.1.{1,2}

nodejs-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 83% from 417MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.1>
to 69MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- 0.8.{27,28}
- 0.9.{11,12}
- 0.10.{37,38}
- 0.11.{15,16}
- 0.12.{1,2}

php-buildpack v3.2.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Size reduced 27% from 1.1GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.1.1> to
803MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/blob/v3.2.0/manifest.yml>
)

*PHP*:

- 5.6.{6,7}
- 5.5.{22,23}
- 5.4.{38,39}

*HHVM* (lucid64 stack):

- 3.2.0

*HHVM* (cflinuxfs2 stack):

- 3.5.{0,1}
- 3.6.{0,1}

*Apache HTTPD*:

- 2.4.12

*nginx*:

- 1.7.10
- 1.6.2
- 1.5.13

python-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 654MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0>
to 454MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
)

- 2.7.{8,9}
- 3.2.{4,5}
- 3.3.{5,6}
- 3.4.{2,3}

ruby-buildpack v1.4.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Size reduced 71% from 1.3GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.1>
to 365MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/blob/v1.4.0/manifest.yml>
)

*MRI*:

- 2.2.{1,2}
- 2.1.{5,6}
- 2.0.0p645

*JRuby*:

- ruby-1.9.3-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.0.0-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.2.0-jruby-9.0.0.0.pre1


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Addressing buildpack size
To: vcap-dev(a)cloudfoundry.org


Hello vcap-dev!

This email details a proposed change to how Cloud Foundry buildpacks
are packaged, with respect to the ever-increasing number of binary
dependencies being cached within them.

This proposal's permanent residence is here:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack-packager/issues/4

Feel free to comment there or reply to this email.
------------------------------
Buildpack SizesWhere we are today

Many of you have seen, and possibly been challenged by, the enormous
sizes of some of the buildpacks that are currently shipping with cf-release.

Here's the state of the world right now, as of v205:

php-buildpack: 1.1G
ruby-buildpack: 922M
go-buildpack: 675M
python-buildpack: 654M
nodejs-buildpack: 403M
----------------------
total: 3.7G

These enormous sizes are the result of the current policy of packaging
every-version-of-everything-ever-supported ("EVOEES") within the buildpack.

Most recently, this problem was exacerbated by the fact that buildpacks
now contain binaries for two rootfses.
Why this is a problem

If continued, buildpacks will only continue to increase in size,
leading to longer and longer build and deploy times, longer test times,
slacker feedback loops, and therefore less frequent buildpack releases.

Additionally, this also means that we're shipping versions of
interpreters, web servers, and libraries that are deprecated, insecure, or
both. Feedback from CF users has made it clear that many companies view
this as an unnecessary security risk.

This policy is clearly unsustainable.
What we can do about it

There are many things being discussed to ameliorate the impact that
buildpack size is having on the operations of CF.

Notably, Onsi has proposed a change to buildpack caching, to improve
Diego staging times (link to proposal
<https://github.com/pivotal-cf-experimental/diego-dev-notes/blob/master/proposals/better-buildpack-caching.md>
).

However, there is an immediate solution available, which addresses both
the size concerns as well as the security concern: packaging fewer binary
dependencies within the buildpack.
The proposal

I'm proposing that we reduce the binary dependencies in each buildpack
in a very specific way.

Aside on terms I'll use below:

- Versions of the form "1.2.3" are broken down as:
MAJOR.MINOR.TEENY. Many language ecosystems refer to the "TEENY" as "PATCH"
interchangeably, but we're going to use "TEENY" in this proposal.
- We'll assume that TEENY gets bumped for API/ABI compatible
changes.
- We'll assume that MINOR and MAJOR get bumped when there are
API/ABI *incompatible* changes.

I'd like to move forward soon with the following changes:

1. For language interpreters/compilers, we'll package the two
most-recent TEENY versions on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
2. For all other dependencies, we'll package only the single
most-recent TEENY version on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
3. We will discontinue packaging versions of dependencies that have
been deprecated.
4. We will no longer provide "EVOEES" buildpack releases.
5. We will no longer provide "online" buildpack releases, which
download dependencies from the public internet.
6. We will document the process, and provide tooling, for CF
operators to build their own buildpacks, choosing the dependencies that
their organization wants to support or creating "online" buildpacks at
operators' discretion.

An example for #1 is that we'll go from packaging 34 versions of node v0.10.x
to only packaging two: 0.10.37 and 0.10.38.

An example for #2 is that we'll go from packaging 3 versions of nginx 1.5
in the PHP buildpack to only packaging one: 1.5.12.

An example for #3 is that we'll discontinue packaging ruby 1.9.3 in the
ruby-buildpack, which reached end-of-life in February 2015.
Outcomes

With these changes, the total buildpack size will be reduced greatly.
As an example, we expect the ruby-buildpack size to go from 922M to 338M.

We also want to set the expectation that, as new interpreter versions
are released, either for new features or (more urgently) for security
fixes, we'll release new buildpacks much more quickly than we do today. My
hope is that we'll be able to do it within 24 hours of a new release.
Planning

These changes will be relatively easy to make, since all the buildpacks
are now using a manifest.yml file to declare what's being packaged. We
expect to be able to complete this work within the next two weeks.

Stories are in the Tracker backlog under the Epic named
"skinny-buildpacks", which you can see here:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/epic/show/1747328

------------------------------

Please let me know how these changes will impact you and your
organizations, and let me know of any counter-proposals or variations you'd
like to consider.

Thanks,

-mike



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: Addressing buildpack size

Mike Dalessio
 

Hey Dan,


On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Mikusa <dmikusa(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

I'm happy to see the size of the build packs dropping, but I have to ask
why do we bundle the build packs with a fixed set of binaries?

The build packs themselves are very small, it's the binaries that are
huge. It seems like it would make sense to handle them as separate
concerns.
You've nailed it. Yes, it makes a ton of sense to handle binaries as
separate concerns, and we're heading in that direction.

At one point very recently, we started doing some planning around how we
might cache buildpack assets in a structured way (like a blob store) and
seamlessly have everything Just Work™.

The first step towards separating these concerns was to extract the use of
dependencies out of the (generally upstream) buildpack code and into a
buildpack manifest file. Having done that, the dependencies are now
first-class artifacts that can be managed by operators.

We stopped there, at least for the time being, as it's not terribly clear
how to jam buildpack asset caching into the current API, CC buildpack
model, and staging process (though, again, the manifest is the best first
step, as it enables us to trap network calls and thus redirect them to a
cache either on disk or over the network).

It's also quite possible that the remaining pain will be further
ameliorated by the proposed Diego feature to attach persistent disk (on
which, presumably, the buildpacks and their assets are cached), which means
we're deferring further work until we've got more user feedback and data.




I don't want to come off too harsh, but in addition to the size of the
build packs when bundled with binaries, there are some other disadvantages
to doing things this way.

- Binaries and build packs are updated at different rates. Binaries are
usually updated often, to pick up new runtimes versions & security fixes;
build packs are generally changed at a slower pace, as features or bug
fixes for them are needed. Bundling the two together, requires an operator
to update the build packs more often, just to get updated binaries. It's
been my experience that users don't (or forget) to update build packs which
means they're likely running with older, possibly insecure runtimes.

- It's difficult to bundle a set of runtime binaries that suite
everyone's needs, different users will update at different rates and will
want different sets of binaries. If build packs and binaries are packaged
together, users will end up needing to find a specific build pack bundle
that contains the runtime they want or users will need to build their own
custom bundles. If build packs and binaries are handled separately, there
will be more flexibility in what binaries a build pack has available as an
operator can manage binaries independently. Wayne's post seems to hit on
this point.

- At some point, I think this has already happened (jruby & java), build
packs are going to start having overlapping sets of binaries. If the
binaries are bundled with the build pack, there's no way that build packs
could ever share binaries.

My personal preference would be to see build packs bundled without
binaries and some other solution, which probably merits a separate thread,
for managing the binaries.

I'm curious to hear what others think or if I've missed something and
bundling build packs and binaries is clearly the way to go.

Dan

PS. If this is something that came up in the PMC, I apologize. I skimmed
the notes, but may have missed it.



On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

Because of very good compatibility between versions (post 1.X) I would
like to make a motion to do the following:

Split the buildpack:

have the default golang buildpack track the latest golang version

Then handle older versions in one of two ways, either:

a) have a large secondary for older versions

or

b) have multiple, one for each version of golang, users can specify a
specific URL if they care about specific versions.

This would improve space/time considerations for operations. Personally I
would prefer b) because it allows you to enable supporting older go
versions out of the box by design but still keeping each golang buildpack
small.

~Wayne

Wayne E. Seguin <wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com>
CTO ; Stark & Wayne, LLC

On May 4, 2015, at 12:40 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Hi Wayne,

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

What an incredible step in the right direction, Awesome!!!

Out of curiosity, why is the go buildpack still quite so large?
Thanks for asking this question.

Currently we're including the following binary dependencies in
`go-buildpack`:

```
cache $ ls -lSh *_go*
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.2.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.2.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.3.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
```

One question we should ask, I think, is: should we still be supporting
golang 1.1 and 1.2? Dropping those versions would cut the size of the
buildpack in (approximately) half.





On May 1, 2015, at 11:54 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Skinny buildpacks have been cut for go, nodejs, php, python and ruby
buildpacks.

| | current | previous |
|--------+---------+----------|
| go | 442MB | 633MB |
| nodejs | 69MB | 417MB |
| php | 804MB | 1.1GB |
| python | 454MB | 654MB |
| ruby | 365MB | 1.3GB |
|--------+---------+----------|
| total | 2.1GB | 4.1GB |

for an aggregate 51% reduction in size. Details follow.
Next Steps

I recognize that every cloud operator may have a different policy on
what versions of interpreters and libraries they want to support, based on
the specific requirements of their users.

These buildpacks reflect a "bare mininum" policy for a cloud to be
operable, and I do not expect these buildpacks to be adopted as-is by many
operators.

These buildpacks have not yet been added to cf-release, specifically so
that the community can prepare their own buildpacks if necessary.

Over the next few days, the buildpacks core team will ship documentation
and tooling to assist you in packaging specific dependencies for your
instance of CF. I'll start a new thread on this list early next week to
communicate this information.
Call to Action

In the meantime, please think about whether the policy implemented in
these buildpacks ("last two patches (or teenies) on all supported
major.minor releases") is suitable for your users; and if not, think about
what dependencies you'll ideally be supporting.
go-buildpack v1.3.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 633MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0> to
442MB <https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>
.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- golang 1.4.{1,2}
- golang 1.3.{2,3}
- golang 1.2.{1,2}
- golang 1.1.{1,2}

nodejs-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 83% from 417MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.1>
to 69MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- 0.8.{27,28}
- 0.9.{11,12}
- 0.10.{37,38}
- 0.11.{15,16}
- 0.12.{1,2}

php-buildpack v3.2.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Size reduced 27% from 1.1GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.1.1> to
803MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/blob/v3.2.0/manifest.yml>
)

*PHP*:

- 5.6.{6,7}
- 5.5.{22,23}
- 5.4.{38,39}

*HHVM* (lucid64 stack):

- 3.2.0

*HHVM* (cflinuxfs2 stack):

- 3.5.{0,1}
- 3.6.{0,1}

*Apache HTTPD*:

- 2.4.12

*nginx*:

- 1.7.10
- 1.6.2
- 1.5.13

python-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 654MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0>
to 454MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
)

- 2.7.{8,9}
- 3.2.{4,5}
- 3.3.{5,6}
- 3.4.{2,3}

ruby-buildpack v1.4.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Size reduced 71% from 1.3GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.1> to
365MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/blob/v1.4.0/manifest.yml>
)

*MRI*:

- 2.2.{1,2}
- 2.1.{5,6}
- 2.0.0p645

*JRuby*:

- ruby-1.9.3-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.0.0-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.2.0-jruby-9.0.0.0.pre1


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Addressing buildpack size
To: vcap-dev(a)cloudfoundry.org


Hello vcap-dev!

This email details a proposed change to how Cloud Foundry buildpacks are
packaged, with respect to the ever-increasing number of binary dependencies
being cached within them.

This proposal's permanent residence is here:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack-packager/issues/4

Feel free to comment there or reply to this email.
------------------------------
Buildpack SizesWhere we are today

Many of you have seen, and possibly been challenged by, the enormous
sizes of some of the buildpacks that are currently shipping with cf-release.

Here's the state of the world right now, as of v205:

php-buildpack: 1.1G
ruby-buildpack: 922M
go-buildpack: 675M
python-buildpack: 654M
nodejs-buildpack: 403M
----------------------
total: 3.7G

These enormous sizes are the result of the current policy of packaging
every-version-of-everything-ever-supported ("EVOEES") within the buildpack.

Most recently, this problem was exacerbated by the fact that buildpacks
now contain binaries for two rootfses.
Why this is a problem

If continued, buildpacks will only continue to increase in size, leading
to longer and longer build and deploy times, longer test times, slacker
feedback loops, and therefore less frequent buildpack releases.

Additionally, this also means that we're shipping versions of
interpreters, web servers, and libraries that are deprecated, insecure, or
both. Feedback from CF users has made it clear that many companies view
this as an unnecessary security risk.

This policy is clearly unsustainable.
What we can do about it

There are many things being discussed to ameliorate the impact that
buildpack size is having on the operations of CF.

Notably, Onsi has proposed a change to buildpack caching, to improve
Diego staging times (link to proposal
<https://github.com/pivotal-cf-experimental/diego-dev-notes/blob/master/proposals/better-buildpack-caching.md>
).

However, there is an immediate solution available, which addresses both
the size concerns as well as the security concern: packaging fewer binary
dependencies within the buildpack.
The proposal

I'm proposing that we reduce the binary dependencies in each buildpack
in a very specific way.

Aside on terms I'll use below:

- Versions of the form "1.2.3" are broken down as:
MAJOR.MINOR.TEENY. Many language ecosystems refer to the "TEENY" as "PATCH"
interchangeably, but we're going to use "TEENY" in this proposal.
- We'll assume that TEENY gets bumped for API/ABI compatible changes.
- We'll assume that MINOR and MAJOR get bumped when there are
API/ABI *incompatible* changes.

I'd like to move forward soon with the following changes:

1. For language interpreters/compilers, we'll package the two
most-recent TEENY versions on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
2. For all other dependencies, we'll package only the single
most-recent TEENY version on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
3. We will discontinue packaging versions of dependencies that have
been deprecated.
4. We will no longer provide "EVOEES" buildpack releases.
5. We will no longer provide "online" buildpack releases, which
download dependencies from the public internet.
6. We will document the process, and provide tooling, for CF
operators to build their own buildpacks, choosing the dependencies that
their organization wants to support or creating "online" buildpacks at
operators' discretion.

An example for #1 is that we'll go from packaging 34 versions of node v0.10.x
to only packaging two: 0.10.37 and 0.10.38.

An example for #2 is that we'll go from packaging 3 versions of nginx 1.5
in the PHP buildpack to only packaging one: 1.5.12.

An example for #3 is that we'll discontinue packaging ruby 1.9.3 in the
ruby-buildpack, which reached end-of-life in February 2015.
Outcomes

With these changes, the total buildpack size will be reduced greatly. As
an example, we expect the ruby-buildpack size to go from 922M to 338M.

We also want to set the expectation that, as new interpreter versions
are released, either for new features or (more urgently) for security
fixes, we'll release new buildpacks much more quickly than we do today. My
hope is that we'll be able to do it within 24 hours of a new release.
Planning

These changes will be relatively easy to make, since all the buildpacks
are now using a manifest.yml file to declare what's being packaged. We
expect to be able to complete this work within the next two weeks.

Stories are in the Tracker backlog under the Epic named
"skinny-buildpacks", which you can see here:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/epic/show/1747328

------------------------------

Please let me know how these changes will impact you and your
organizations, and let me know of any counter-proposals or variations you'd
like to consider.

Thanks,

-mike



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: Meeting Minutes for Services PMC 2015-05-07

Duncan Johnston-Watt <duncan.johnstonwatt@...>
 

Shannon

That's tremendous news.

We look forward to working with the Services PMC.

See you at CF Summit.

Best

Duncan

On 8 May 2015 at 00:46, Shannon Coen <scoen(a)pivotal.io> wrote:


https://docs.google.com/document/d/10aOoLF_FPxuHYQfI813VCTF9z2VRC_dIuYDIGND3xbU/edit?usp=sharing

Highlights:
1. Two projects were approved for incubation: Brooklyn service broker from
Cloudsoft, and a MSSQL Server service broker from HP.
2. Updates provides for the Service Enablement and Notifications projects.

Best,

Shannon Coen
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
Pivotal, Inc.

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

--
Duncan Johnston-Watt
CEO | Cloudsoft Corporation

Twitter | @duncanjw
Mobile | +44 777 190 2653
Skype | duncan_johnstonwatt
Linkedin | www.linkedin.com/in/duncanjohnstonwatt

Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP

This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.

Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.


Re: Addressing buildpack size

Patrick Mueller <pmuellr@...>
 

Ya, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me to bundle the buildpacks
with their typical binaries. Take io.js for instance [1]; prolly not
required to change the buildpack as often as new releases of the io.js
itself.

[1] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Mikusa <dmikusa(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

I'm happy to see the size of the build packs dropping, but I have to ask
why do we bundle the build packs with a fixed set of binaries?

The build packs themselves are very small, it's the binaries that are
huge. It seems like it would make sense to handle them as separate
concerns.

I don't want to come off too harsh, but in addition to the size of the
build packs when bundled with binaries, there are some other disadvantages
to doing things this way.

- Binaries and build packs are updated at different rates. Binaries are
usually updated often, to pick up new runtimes versions & security fixes;
build packs are generally changed at a slower pace, as features or bug
fixes for them are needed. Bundling the two together, requires an operator
to update the build packs more often, just to get updated binaries. It's
been my experience that users don't (or forget) to update build packs which
means they're likely running with older, possibly insecure runtimes.

- It's difficult to bundle a set of runtime binaries that suite
everyone's needs, different users will update at different rates and will
want different sets of binaries. If build packs and binaries are packaged
together, users will end up needing to find a specific build pack bundle
that contains the runtime they want or users will need to build their own
custom bundles. If build packs and binaries are handled separately, there
will be more flexibility in what binaries a build pack has available as an
operator can manage binaries independently. Wayne's post seems to hit on
this point.

- At some point, I think this has already happened (jruby & java), build
packs are going to start having overlapping sets of binaries. If the
binaries are bundled with the build pack, there's no way that build packs
could ever share binaries.

My personal preference would be to see build packs bundled without
binaries and some other solution, which probably merits a separate thread,
for managing the binaries.

I'm curious to hear what others think or if I've missed something and
bundling build packs and binaries is clearly the way to go.

Dan

PS. If this is something that came up in the PMC, I apologize. I skimmed
the notes, but may have missed it.



On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

Because of very good compatibility between versions (post 1.X) I would
like to make a motion to do the following:

Split the buildpack:

have the default golang buildpack track the latest golang version

Then handle older versions in one of two ways, either:

a) have a large secondary for older versions

or

b) have multiple, one for each version of golang, users can specify a
specific URL if they care about specific versions.

This would improve space/time considerations for operations. Personally I
would prefer b) because it allows you to enable supporting older go
versions out of the box by design but still keeping each golang buildpack
small.

~Wayne

Wayne E. Seguin <wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com>
CTO ; Stark & Wayne, LLC

On May 4, 2015, at 12:40 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Hi Wayne,

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

What an incredible step in the right direction, Awesome!!!

Out of curiosity, why is the go buildpack still quite so large?
Thanks for asking this question.

Currently we're including the following binary dependencies in
`go-buildpack`:

```
cache $ ls -lSh *_go*
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.2.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.2.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.3.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
```

One question we should ask, I think, is: should we still be supporting
golang 1.1 and 1.2? Dropping those versions would cut the size of the
buildpack in (approximately) half.





On May 1, 2015, at 11:54 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Skinny buildpacks have been cut for go, nodejs, php, python and ruby
buildpacks.

| | current | previous |
|--------+---------+----------|
| go | 442MB | 633MB |
| nodejs | 69MB | 417MB |
| php | 804MB | 1.1GB |
| python | 454MB | 654MB |
| ruby | 365MB | 1.3GB |
|--------+---------+----------|
| total | 2.1GB | 4.1GB |

for an aggregate 51% reduction in size. Details follow.
Next Steps

I recognize that every cloud operator may have a different policy on
what versions of interpreters and libraries they want to support, based on
the specific requirements of their users.

These buildpacks reflect a "bare mininum" policy for a cloud to be
operable, and I do not expect these buildpacks to be adopted as-is by many
operators.

These buildpacks have not yet been added to cf-release, specifically so
that the community can prepare their own buildpacks if necessary.

Over the next few days, the buildpacks core team will ship documentation
and tooling to assist you in packaging specific dependencies for your
instance of CF. I'll start a new thread on this list early next week to
communicate this information.
Call to Action

In the meantime, please think about whether the policy implemented in
these buildpacks ("last two patches (or teenies) on all supported
major.minor releases") is suitable for your users; and if not, think about
what dependencies you'll ideally be supporting.
go-buildpack v1.3.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 633MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0> to
442MB <https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>
.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- golang 1.4.{1,2}
- golang 1.3.{2,3}
- golang 1.2.{1,2}
- golang 1.1.{1,2}

nodejs-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 83% from 417MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.1>
to 69MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- 0.8.{27,28}
- 0.9.{11,12}
- 0.10.{37,38}
- 0.11.{15,16}
- 0.12.{1,2}

php-buildpack v3.2.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Size reduced 27% from 1.1GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.1.1> to
803MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/blob/v3.2.0/manifest.yml>
)

*PHP*:

- 5.6.{6,7}
- 5.5.{22,23}
- 5.4.{38,39}

*HHVM* (lucid64 stack):

- 3.2.0

*HHVM* (cflinuxfs2 stack):

- 3.5.{0,1}
- 3.6.{0,1}

*Apache HTTPD*:

- 2.4.12

*nginx*:

- 1.7.10
- 1.6.2
- 1.5.13

python-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 654MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0>
to 454MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
)

- 2.7.{8,9}
- 3.2.{4,5}
- 3.3.{5,6}
- 3.4.{2,3}

ruby-buildpack v1.4.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Size reduced 71% from 1.3GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.1> to
365MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/blob/v1.4.0/manifest.yml>
)

*MRI*:

- 2.2.{1,2}
- 2.1.{5,6}
- 2.0.0p645

*JRuby*:

- ruby-1.9.3-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.0.0-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.2.0-jruby-9.0.0.0.pre1


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Addressing buildpack size
To: vcap-dev(a)cloudfoundry.org


Hello vcap-dev!

This email details a proposed change to how Cloud Foundry buildpacks are
packaged, with respect to the ever-increasing number of binary dependencies
being cached within them.

This proposal's permanent residence is here:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack-packager/issues/4

Feel free to comment there or reply to this email.
------------------------------
Buildpack SizesWhere we are today

Many of you have seen, and possibly been challenged by, the enormous
sizes of some of the buildpacks that are currently shipping with cf-release.

Here's the state of the world right now, as of v205:

php-buildpack: 1.1G
ruby-buildpack: 922M
go-buildpack: 675M
python-buildpack: 654M
nodejs-buildpack: 403M
----------------------
total: 3.7G

These enormous sizes are the result of the current policy of packaging
every-version-of-everything-ever-supported ("EVOEES") within the buildpack.

Most recently, this problem was exacerbated by the fact that buildpacks
now contain binaries for two rootfses.
Why this is a problem

If continued, buildpacks will only continue to increase in size, leading
to longer and longer build and deploy times, longer test times, slacker
feedback loops, and therefore less frequent buildpack releases.

Additionally, this also means that we're shipping versions of
interpreters, web servers, and libraries that are deprecated, insecure, or
both. Feedback from CF users has made it clear that many companies view
this as an unnecessary security risk.

This policy is clearly unsustainable.
What we can do about it

There are many things being discussed to ameliorate the impact that
buildpack size is having on the operations of CF.

Notably, Onsi has proposed a change to buildpack caching, to improve
Diego staging times (link to proposal
<https://github.com/pivotal-cf-experimental/diego-dev-notes/blob/master/proposals/better-buildpack-caching.md>
).

However, there is an immediate solution available, which addresses both
the size concerns as well as the security concern: packaging fewer binary
dependencies within the buildpack.
The proposal

I'm proposing that we reduce the binary dependencies in each buildpack
in a very specific way.

Aside on terms I'll use below:

- Versions of the form "1.2.3" are broken down as:
MAJOR.MINOR.TEENY. Many language ecosystems refer to the "TEENY" as "PATCH"
interchangeably, but we're going to use "TEENY" in this proposal.
- We'll assume that TEENY gets bumped for API/ABI compatible changes.
- We'll assume that MINOR and MAJOR get bumped when there are
API/ABI *incompatible* changes.

I'd like to move forward soon with the following changes:

1. For language interpreters/compilers, we'll package the two
most-recent TEENY versions on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
2. For all other dependencies, we'll package only the single
most-recent TEENY version on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
3. We will discontinue packaging versions of dependencies that have
been deprecated.
4. We will no longer provide "EVOEES" buildpack releases.
5. We will no longer provide "online" buildpack releases, which
download dependencies from the public internet.
6. We will document the process, and provide tooling, for CF
operators to build their own buildpacks, choosing the dependencies that
their organization wants to support or creating "online" buildpacks at
operators' discretion.

An example for #1 is that we'll go from packaging 34 versions of node v0.10.x
to only packaging two: 0.10.37 and 0.10.38.

An example for #2 is that we'll go from packaging 3 versions of nginx 1.5
in the PHP buildpack to only packaging one: 1.5.12.

An example for #3 is that we'll discontinue packaging ruby 1.9.3 in the
ruby-buildpack, which reached end-of-life in February 2015.
Outcomes

With these changes, the total buildpack size will be reduced greatly. As
an example, we expect the ruby-buildpack size to go from 922M to 338M.

We also want to set the expectation that, as new interpreter versions
are released, either for new features or (more urgently) for security
fixes, we'll release new buildpacks much more quickly than we do today. My
hope is that we'll be able to do it within 24 hours of a new release.
Planning

These changes will be relatively easy to make, since all the buildpacks
are now using a manifest.yml file to declare what's being packaged. We
expect to be able to complete this work within the next two weeks.

Stories are in the Tracker backlog under the Epic named
"skinny-buildpacks", which you can see here:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/epic/show/1747328

------------------------------

Please let me know how these changes will impact you and your
organizations, and let me know of any counter-proposals or variations you'd
like to consider.

Thanks,

-mike



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

--
Patrick Mueller
http://muellerware.org


Re: Addressing buildpack size

Josh Ghiloni <ghiloni@...>
 

How does that jive with offline buildpacks? Would it be a matter of the
operator building it with a certain version of the binaries and then
uploading them combined?

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:01 PM, Patrick Mueller <pmuellr(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Ya, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me to bundle the buildpacks
with their typical binaries. Take io.js for instance [1]; prolly not
required to change the buildpack as often as new releases of the io.js
itself.

[1] https://github.com/iojs/io.js/blob/master/CHANGELOG.md

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Mikusa <dmikusa(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

I'm happy to see the size of the build packs dropping, but I have to ask
why do we bundle the build packs with a fixed set of binaries?

The build packs themselves are very small, it's the binaries that are
huge. It seems like it would make sense to handle them as separate
concerns.

I don't want to come off too harsh, but in addition to the size of the
build packs when bundled with binaries, there are some other disadvantages
to doing things this way.

- Binaries and build packs are updated at different rates. Binaries
are usually updated often, to pick up new runtimes versions & security
fixes; build packs are generally changed at a slower pace, as features or
bug fixes for them are needed. Bundling the two together, requires an
operator to update the build packs more often, just to get updated
binaries. It's been my experience that users don't (or forget) to update
build packs which means they're likely running with older, possibly
insecure runtimes.

- It's difficult to bundle a set of runtime binaries that suite
everyone's needs, different users will update at different rates and will
want different sets of binaries. If build packs and binaries are packaged
together, users will end up needing to find a specific build pack bundle
that contains the runtime they want or users will need to build their own
custom bundles. If build packs and binaries are handled separately, there
will be more flexibility in what binaries a build pack has available as an
operator can manage binaries independently. Wayne's post seems to hit on
this point.

- At some point, I think this has already happened (jruby & java),
build packs are going to start having overlapping sets of binaries. If the
binaries are bundled with the build pack, there's no way that build packs
could ever share binaries.

My personal preference would be to see build packs bundled without
binaries and some other solution, which probably merits a separate thread,
for managing the binaries.

I'm curious to hear what others think or if I've missed something and
bundling build packs and binaries is clearly the way to go.

Dan

PS. If this is something that came up in the PMC, I apologize. I
skimmed the notes, but may have missed it.



On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

Because of very good compatibility between versions (post 1.X) I would
like to make a motion to do the following:

Split the buildpack:

have the default golang buildpack track the latest golang version

Then handle older versions in one of two ways, either:

a) have a large secondary for older versions

or

b) have multiple, one for each version of golang, users can specify a
specific URL if they care about specific versions.

This would improve space/time considerations for operations. Personally
I would prefer b) because it allows you to enable supporting older go
versions out of the box by design but still keeping each golang buildpack
small.

~Wayne

Wayne E. Seguin <wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com>
CTO ; Stark & Wayne, LLC

On May 4, 2015, at 12:40 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Hi Wayne,

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <
wayneeseguin(a)starkandwayne.com> wrote:

What an incredible step in the right direction, Awesome!!!

Out of curiosity, why is the go buildpack still quite so large?
Thanks for asking this question.

Currently we're including the following binary dependencies in
`go-buildpack`:

```
cache $ ls -lSh *_go*
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 60M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.4.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.2.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 54M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.2.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.3.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 51M 2015-05-04 12:36
https___storage.googleapis.com_golang_go1.3.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.2.linux-amd64.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 flavorjones flavorjones 40M 2015-05-04 12:36
http___go.googlecode.com_files_go1.1.1.linux-amd64.tar.gz
```

One question we should ask, I think, is: should we still be supporting
golang 1.1 and 1.2? Dropping those versions would cut the size of the
buildpack in (approximately) half.





On May 1, 2015, at 11:54 , Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

Skinny buildpacks have been cut for go, nodejs, php, python and ruby
buildpacks.

| | current | previous |
|--------+---------+----------|
| go | 442MB | 633MB |
| nodejs | 69MB | 417MB |
| php | 804MB | 1.1GB |
| python | 454MB | 654MB |
| ruby | 365MB | 1.3GB |
|--------+---------+----------|
| total | 2.1GB | 4.1GB |

for an aggregate 51% reduction in size. Details follow.
Next Steps

I recognize that every cloud operator may have a different policy on
what versions of interpreters and libraries they want to support, based on
the specific requirements of their users.

These buildpacks reflect a "bare mininum" policy for a cloud to be
operable, and I do not expect these buildpacks to be adopted as-is by many
operators.

These buildpacks have not yet been added to cf-release, specifically
so that the community can prepare their own buildpacks if necessary.

Over the next few days, the buildpacks core team will ship
documentation and tooling to assist you in packaging specific dependencies
for your instance of CF. I'll start a new thread on this list early next
week to communicate this information.
Call to Action

In the meantime, please think about whether the policy implemented in
these buildpacks ("last two patches (or teenies) on all supported
major.minor releases") is suitable for your users; and if not, think about
what dependencies you'll ideally be supporting.
go-buildpack v1.3.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 633MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0> to
442MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/go-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- golang 1.4.{1,2}
- golang 1.3.{2,3}
- golang 1.2.{1,2}
- golang 1.1.{1,2}

nodejs-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 83% from 417MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.1>
to 69MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/nodejs-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
):

- 0.8.{27,28}
- 0.9.{11,12}
- 0.10.{37,38}
- 0.11.{15,16}
- 0.12.{1,2}

php-buildpack v3.2.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Size reduced 27% from 1.1GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.1.1> to
803MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/releases/tag/v3.2.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/php-buildpack/blob/v3.2.0/manifest.yml>
)

*PHP*:

- 5.6.{6,7}
- 5.5.{22,23}
- 5.4.{38,39}

*HHVM* (lucid64 stack):

- 3.2.0

*HHVM* (cflinuxfs2 stack):

- 3.5.{0,1}
- 3.6.{0,1}

*Apache HTTPD*:

- 2.4.12

*nginx*:

- 1.7.10
- 1.6.2
- 1.5.13

python-buildpack v1.3.0

Full release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Size reduced 30% from 654MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.2.0>
to 454MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/python-buildpack/blob/v1.3.0/manifest.yml>
)

- 2.7.{8,9}
- 3.2.{4,5}
- 3.3.{5,6}
- 3.4.{2,3}

ruby-buildpack v1.4.0

Release notes are here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Size reduced 71% from 1.3GB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.3.1>
to 365MB
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/releases/tag/v1.4.0>.

Supports: (full manifest here
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry/ruby-buildpack/blob/v1.4.0/manifest.yml>
)

*MRI*:

- 2.2.{1,2}
- 2.1.{5,6}
- 2.0.0p645

*JRuby*:

- ruby-1.9.3-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.0.0-jruby-1.7.19
- ruby-2.2.0-jruby-9.0.0.0.pre1


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io>
Date: Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 11:10 AM
Subject: Addressing buildpack size
To: vcap-dev(a)cloudfoundry.org


Hello vcap-dev!

This email details a proposed change to how Cloud Foundry buildpacks
are packaged, with respect to the ever-increasing number of binary
dependencies being cached within them.

This proposal's permanent residence is here:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack-packager/issues/4

Feel free to comment there or reply to this email.
------------------------------
Buildpack SizesWhere we are today

Many of you have seen, and possibly been challenged by, the enormous
sizes of some of the buildpacks that are currently shipping with cf-release.

Here's the state of the world right now, as of v205:

php-buildpack: 1.1G
ruby-buildpack: 922M
go-buildpack: 675M
python-buildpack: 654M
nodejs-buildpack: 403M
----------------------
total: 3.7G

These enormous sizes are the result of the current policy of packaging
every-version-of-everything-ever-supported ("EVOEES") within the buildpack.

Most recently, this problem was exacerbated by the fact that buildpacks
now contain binaries for two rootfses.
Why this is a problem

If continued, buildpacks will only continue to increase in size,
leading to longer and longer build and deploy times, longer test times,
slacker feedback loops, and therefore less frequent buildpack releases.

Additionally, this also means that we're shipping versions of
interpreters, web servers, and libraries that are deprecated, insecure, or
both. Feedback from CF users has made it clear that many companies view
this as an unnecessary security risk.

This policy is clearly unsustainable.
What we can do about it

There are many things being discussed to ameliorate the impact that
buildpack size is having on the operations of CF.

Notably, Onsi has proposed a change to buildpack caching, to improve
Diego staging times (link to proposal
<https://github.com/pivotal-cf-experimental/diego-dev-notes/blob/master/proposals/better-buildpack-caching.md>
).

However, there is an immediate solution available, which addresses both
the size concerns as well as the security concern: packaging fewer binary
dependencies within the buildpack.
The proposal

I'm proposing that we reduce the binary dependencies in each buildpack
in a very specific way.

Aside on terms I'll use below:

- Versions of the form "1.2.3" are broken down as:
MAJOR.MINOR.TEENY. Many language ecosystems refer to the "TEENY" as "PATCH"
interchangeably, but we're going to use "TEENY" in this proposal.
- We'll assume that TEENY gets bumped for API/ABI compatible
changes.
- We'll assume that MINOR and MAJOR get bumped when there are
API/ABI *incompatible* changes.

I'd like to move forward soon with the following changes:

1. For language interpreters/compilers, we'll package the two
most-recent TEENY versions on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
2. For all other dependencies, we'll package only the single
most-recent TEENY version on each MAJOR.MINOR release.
3. We will discontinue packaging versions of dependencies that have
been deprecated.
4. We will no longer provide "EVOEES" buildpack releases.
5. We will no longer provide "online" buildpack releases, which
download dependencies from the public internet.
6. We will document the process, and provide tooling, for CF
operators to build their own buildpacks, choosing the dependencies that
their organization wants to support or creating "online" buildpacks at
operators' discretion.

An example for #1 is that we'll go from packaging 34 versions of node v0.10.x
to only packaging two: 0.10.37 and 0.10.38.

An example for #2 is that we'll go from packaging 3 versions of nginx 1.5
in the PHP buildpack to only packaging one: 1.5.12.

An example for #3 is that we'll discontinue packaging ruby 1.9.3 in the
ruby-buildpack, which reached end-of-life in February 2015.
Outcomes

With these changes, the total buildpack size will be reduced greatly.
As an example, we expect the ruby-buildpack size to go from 922M to 338M.

We also want to set the expectation that, as new interpreter versions
are released, either for new features or (more urgently) for security
fixes, we'll release new buildpacks much more quickly than we do today. My
hope is that we'll be able to do it within 24 hours of a new release.
Planning

These changes will be relatively easy to make, since all the buildpacks
are now using a manifest.yml file to declare what's being packaged. We
expect to be able to complete this work within the next two weeks.

Stories are in the Tracker backlog under the Epic named
"skinny-buildpacks", which you can see here:

https://www.pivotaltracker.com/epic/show/1747328

------------------------------

Please let me know how these changes will impact you and your
organizations, and let me know of any counter-proposals or variations you'd
like to consider.

Thanks,

-mike



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


--
Patrick Mueller
http://muellerware.org

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: Purge files on NFS or S3?

James Bayer
 

john, i think the resource files may grow forever right now without
intervention.

i'm pretty confident that when apps are deleted that their droplets are
deleted with them and that proper garbage collection occurs with that.

i'm unaware of any NFS file system to s3 blob migration. you would need to
update the CC_DB references too i'm pretty sure. i'm interested if you find
out more.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM, John Wong <gokoproject(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

I just looked at our disk usage on NFS server. We have used like 200G so
far, and I wonder if there's a systematic way to purge files we don't need
(or how do I know I don't need them)?

Similarly, if I were to replace NFS server with S3 instead, does the
existing process (if any) work with S3?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

--
Thank you,

James Bayer


Re: stdout.log and stderr.log not show in CF197 with loggregator enabled

James Bayer
 

i believe those files were removed since loggregator gives you access to
the files (and you get get the content via syslog). you may be able to
adjust the start command to write them out again.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:31 PM, Zhang, Yuan <Yuan.Zhang(a)emc.com> wrote:

Hi,



We upgrade from CF172 to CF197 and enable loggregator on CF197. But for
application deployed to CF197 (with loggregator enabled), we DO NOT

see stdout.log and stderr.log anymore in application logs directory
anymore. We can see logs/stdout.log and logs/stderr.log in CF172.



CF197:

cf file <app> logs

Getting file contents... OK



staging_task.log 1.3K



Can you tell us what setting in CF 197 can affect stdout.log and
stderr.log show up or not? How to let logs/stdout.log and logs/stderr.log
show up?



Thanks,

Tina Zhang



_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

--
Thank you,

James Bayer


Re: Can't Create Service Instance in Cloud Foundry

James Bayer
 

looks like you already took what was going to be my advice and inquired on
the maintainers of the services-contrib repo with an issue:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry-community/cf-services-contrib-release/issues/154

good luck

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 8:20 AM, Matthew Landry <mhlandry(a)gmail.com> wrote:


I'm trying to get the introduction to spring cloud
<https://spring.io/blog/2014/06/03/introducing-spring-cloud> app working
with an instance of Cloud Foundry that I'm running on my machine. I tried
to push the app and I get this message:

Could not find service postgres-service to bind to
hello-spring-cloud

That makes sense to me so I started tracking down the postgres service.
When I run `cf marketplace`, I get:

service plans description
mongodb default MongoDB NoSQL database
postgresql default PostgreSQL database
rabbitmq default RabbitMQ message queue
redis default Redis key-value store

When I try to create a service instance of the postgresql service and I
get:

$ cf create-service postgresql default postgresql-service
Creating service instance postgresql-service in org xyz / space
development as admin...
FAILED
Server error, status code: 500, error code: 10001, message: Service
broker error: Not authorized

Here are the permissions for the space:

Getting users in org xyz / space development as admin

SPACE MANAGER
admin

SPACE DEVELOPER
Admin

The cf service-access command doesn¹t yield anything interesting:

$ cf service-access
Getting service access as admin

Then it shows nothing on the terminal. So I tried to enable service access

$ cf enable-service-access postgresql
Enabling access to all plans of service postgresql for all orgs as
admin...
All plans of the service are already accessible for all orgs
OK

For the life of me, I can¹t figure out what¹s going on. I posted a
question to Stack Overflow <
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30034143/cant-create-service-instance-in-cloud-foundry>
and was referred here after some debugging
attempts were fruitless. Anybody got any ideas?

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

--
Thank you,

James Bayer


Re: [cf-lattice] [cf-bosh] Links to Nabble archives of the CF lists

James Bayer
 

aaron,

i added a page on the cf community wiki with your links:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry-community/cf-docs-contrib/wiki/Mailing-Lists

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:55 PM, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer(a)us.ibm.com>
wrote:

+! nice job!

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
IBM Distinguished Engineer, CTO Open Cloud
IBM Software Group, Open Technologies
email: chrisfer(a)us.ibm.com
twitter: @christo4ferris
blog: http://thoughtsoncloud.com/index.php/author/cferris/
phone: +1 508 667 0402

[image: Inactive hide details for Chip Childers ---05/06/2015 01:51:38
PM---Thanks Aaron! Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | C]Chip
Childers ---05/06/2015 01:51:38 PM---Thanks Aaron! Chip Childers |
Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation

From: Chip Childers <cchilders(a)cloudfoundry.org>
To: "Huber, Aaron M" <aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com>
Cc: "cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>, "
cf-lattice(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-lattice(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>, "
cf-bosh(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org" <cf-bosh(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
Date: 05/06/2015 01:51 PM
Subject: Re: [cf-dev] [cf-bosh] Links to Nabble archives of the CF lists
Sent by: cf-dev-bounces(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
------------------------------



Thanks Aaron!

Chip Childers | Technology Chief of Staff | Cloud Foundry Foundation

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Huber, Aaron M <*aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com*
<aaron.m.huber(a)intel.com>> wrote:

I’ve created Nabble archives of the CF lists here:



*http://cf-bosh.70367.x6.nabble.com/*
<http://cf-bosh.70367.x6.nabble.com/>

*http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/*
<http://cf-dev.70369.x6.nabble.com/>

*http://cf-lattice.70370.x6.nabble.com/*
<http://cf-lattice.70370.x6.nabble.com/>



The archives are searchable and allow web viewing of the mailing list
without subscribing via email. There is also an RSS feed for each list.



Aaron

_______________________________________________
cf-bosh mailing list
*cf-bosh(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org* <cf-bosh(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
*https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-bosh*
<https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-bosh>


_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev



_______________________________________________
cf-lattice mailing list
cf-lattice(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-lattice


--
Thank you,

James Bayer


Recipe to install Diego?

Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod@...>
 

Hi,

Are there any examples or docs on installing Diego with bosh/microbosh?
Using the bosh-lite as a template, I'm tripping up on various parts. Is
this even a valid direction in installing?
Either AWS or Openstack..

Thanks,
Tom


Re: Is there an auto-completion script?

Daniel Kaplan
 

Great, thanks a lot for the links.

-Dan

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 10:50 PM, Takeshi Morikawa <moog0814(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi Daniel

I found this

cf(cli) completion
https://github.com/cf-buildpacks/cf_completion

bosh cli completion
https://github.com/anfernee/bosh-completion

Is my answer what you're hoping for?

2015-05-08 14:28 GMT+09:00 Daniel Kaplan <dkaplan(a)pivotal.io>:

Hi DevList,

I think it would be extra convenient if there was Cloud Foundry
auto-completion script that worked similar to the way git's
git-completion
<https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/contrib/completion/git-completion.bash>
works.

Does one already exist? If not, I might write it in my free time. Let
me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Dan

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Recipe to install Diego?

Lev Berman <lev.berman@...>
 

Hi,

I can share my experience on installing Diego on AWS. I followed the
instructions
for BOSH Lite deployment
<https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/diego-release#deploying-diego-to-a-local-bosh-lite-instance>except
for the fact I replaced 3 templates with the ones you can find in the
attachment. Note that in my case instance-count-overrides.yml leads to a
one-AZ deployment. Prerequisites include creating a separate AWS subnet for
Diego. Also, you need to configure routes and security groups in the same
manner you did it for Cloud Foundry.

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 2:57 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

Are there any examples or docs on installing Diego with bosh/microbosh?
Using the bosh-lite as a template, I'm tripping up on various parts. Is
this even a valid direction in installing?
Either AWS or Openstack..

Thanks,
Tom
--
Lev Berman

Altoros - Cloud Foundry deployment, training and integration

Github
*: https://github.com/ldmberman <https://github.com/ldmberman>*


Re: [vcap-dev] Java OOM debugging

Dave Head-Rapson
 

Thanks for the continued advice.

We’ve hit on a key discovery after yet another a soak test this weekend.

- When we deploy using Tomcat 8.0.18 we don’t see the issue

- When we deploy using Tomcat 8.0.20 (same app version, same CF space, same services bound, same JBP code version, same JRE version, running at the same time), we see the crashes occurring after just a couple of hours.

Ideally we’d go ahead with the memory calculations you mentioned however we’re stuck on lucid64 because we’re using Pivotal CF 1.3.x & we’re having upgrade issues to 1.4.x.
So we’re not able to adjust MALLOC_ARENA_MAX, nor are we able to view RSS in pmap as you describe

Other things we’ve tried:

- We set verbose garbage collection to verify there was no memory size issues within the JVM. There wasn’t.

- We tried setting minimum memory for native, it had no effect. The container still gets killed

- We tried adjusting the ‘memory heuristics’ so that they added up to 80 rather than 100. This had the effect of causing a delay in the container being killed. However it still was killed.

This seems like classic memory leak behaviour to me.

From: Lari Hotari [mailto:lari.hotari(a)sagire.fi] On Behalf Of Lari Hotari
Sent: 08 May 2015 16:25
To: Daniel Jones; Head-Rapson, David
Cc: cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
Subject: Re: [Cf-dev] [vcap-dev] Java OOM debugging


For my case, it turned out to be essential to reserve enough memory for "native" in the JBP. For the 2GB total memory, I set the minimum to 330M. With that setting I have been able to get over 2 weeks up time by now.

I mentioned this in my previous email:

The workaround for that in my case was to add a native key under memory_sizes in open_jdk_jre.yml and set the minimum to 330M (that is for a 2GB total memory).
see example https://github.com/grails-samples/java-buildpack/blob/22e0f6a/config/open_jdk_jre.yml#L25
that was how I got the app I'm running on CF to stay within the memory bounds. I'm sure there is now also a way to get the keys without forking the buildpack. I could have also adjusted the percentage portions, but I wanted to set a hard minimum for this case.

I've been trying to get some insight by diffing the reports gathered from the meminfo servlet https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MemoryInfoServlet.groovy

Here is such an example of a diff:
https://gist.github.com/lhotari/ee77decc2585f56cf3ad#file-meminfo_diff_example-txt

meminfo has pmap output included to get the report of the memory map of the process. I have just noticed that most of the memory has already been mmap:ed from the OS and it's just growing in RSS size. For example:
< 00000000a7600000 1471488 1469556 1469556 rw--- [ anon ]
00000000a7600000 1471744 1470444 1470444 rw--- [ anon ]
The pmap output from lucid64 didn't include the RSS size, so you have to use cflinuxfs2 for this. It's also better because of other reasons. The glibc in lucid64 is old and has some bugs around the MALLOC_ARENA_MAX.

I was manually able to estimate the maximum size of the RSS size of what the Java process will consume by simply picking the large anon-blocks from the pmap report and calculating those blocks by the allocated virtual size (VSS).
Based on this calculation, I picked the minimum of 330M for "native" in open_jdk_jre.yml as I mentioned before.

It looks like these rows are for the Heap size:
< 00000000a7600000 1471488 1469556 1469556 rw--- [ anon ]
00000000a7600000 1471744 1470444 1470444 rw--- [ anon ]
It looks like the JVM doesn't fully allocate that block in RSS initially and most of the growth of RSS size comes from that in my case. In your case, it might be something different.

I also added a servlet for getting glibc malloc_info statistics in XML format (). I haven't really analysed that information because of time constraints and because I don't have a pressing problem any more. btw. The malloc_info XML report is missing some key elements, that has been added in later glibc versions (https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/4d653a59ffeae0f46f76a40230e2cfa9587b7e7e).

If killjava.sh never fires and the app crashed with Warden out of memory errors, then I believe it's the kernel's cgroups OOM killer that has killed the container processes. I have found this location where Warden oom notifier gets the OOM notification event:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/ad18bff/warden/lib/warden/container/features/mem_limit.rb#L70
This is the oom.c source code: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/ad18bff7dc56acbc55ff10bcc6045ebdf0b20c97/warden/src/oom/oom.c . It reads the cgroups control files and receives events from the kernel that way.

I'd suggest that you use pmap for the Java process after it has started and calculate the maximum RSS size by calculating the VSS size of the large anon blocks instead of RSS for the blocks that the Java process has reserved for it's different memory areas (I think you shouldn't . You should discard adding VSS for the CompressedClassSpaceSize block.
After this calculation, add enough memory to the "native" parameter in JBP until the RSS size calculated this way stays under the limit.
That's the only "method" I have come up by now.

It might be required to have some RSS space allocated for any zip/jar files read by the Java process. I think that Java uses mmap files for zip file reading by default and that might go on top of all other limits.
To test this theory, I'd suggest testing by adding -Dsun.zip.disableMemoryMapping=true system property setting to JAVA_OPTS. That disables the native mmap for zip/jar file reading. I haven't had time to test this assumption.

I guess the only way to understand how Java allocates memory is to look at the source code.
from http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/ , the instructions to get the source code of JDK 8:
hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u;cd jdk8u;sh get_source.sh
This tool is really good for grepping and searching the source code: http://geoff.greer.fm/ag/
On Ubuntu it's in silversearcher-ag package, "apt-get install silversearcher-ag" and on MacOSX brew it's "brew install the_silver_searcher".
This alias is pretty useful:
alias codegrep='ag --color --group --pager less -C 5'
Then you just search for the correct location in code by starting with the tokens you know about:
codegrep MaxMetaspaceSize
this gives pretty good starting points in looking how the JDK allocates memory.

So the JDK source code is only a few commands away.

It would be interesting to hear more about this if someone has the time to dig in to this. This is about how far I got and I hope sharing this information helps someone continue. :)


Lari
github/twitter: lhotari
On 15-05-08 10:02 AM, Daniel Jones wrote:
Hi Lari et al,

Thanks for your help Lari.

David and I are pairing on this issue, and we're yet to resolve it. We're in the process of creating a repeatable test case (our most crashy app makes calls to external services that need mocking), but in the meantime, here's what we've seen.

Between Java Buildpack commit e89e546 and 17162df, we see apps crashing with Warden out of memory errors. killjava.sh never fires, and this has led us to believe that the kernel is shooting a cgroup process in the head after the cgroup oversteps its memory limit. We cannot find any evidence of the OOM killer firing in any logs, but we may not be looking in the right place.

The JBP is setting heap to be 70%, metaspace to be 15% (with max set to the same as initial), 5% for "stack", 5% for "normalised stack" and 10% for "native". We do not understand why this adds up to 105%, but haven't looked into the JBP algorithm yet. Any pointers on what "normalised stack" is would be much appreciated, as this doesn't appear in the list of heuristics supplied via app env.

Other team members tried applying the same settings that you suggested - thanks for this. Apps still crash with these settings, albeit less frequently.

After reading the blog you linked to (http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-8-permgen-metaspace) we wondered whether the increased reserved metaspace claimed after metaspace GC might be causing a problem; however we reused the test code to create a metaspace leak in a CF app and saw metaspace GCs occur correctly, and memory usage never grow over MaxMetaspaceSize. This figures, as the committed metaspace is still less than MaxMetaspaceSize, and the reserved appears to be whatever RAM is free across the whole DEA.

We noted that an Oracle blog (https://blogs.oracle.com/poonam/entry/about_g1_garbage_collector_permanent) mentions that the metaspace size parameters are approximate. We're currently wondering if native allocations by Tomcat (APR, NIO) are taking up more container memory, and so when the metaspace fills, it's creeping slightly over the limit and triggering the kernel's OOM killer.

Any suggestions would be much appreciated. We've tried to resist tweaking heuristics blindly, but are running out of options as we're struggling to figure out how the Java process is using committed memory. pmap seems to show virtual memory, and so it's hard to see if things like the metaspace or NIO ByteBuffers are nabbing too much and trigger the kernel's OOM killer.

Thanks for all your help,

Daniel Jones & David Head-Rapson

On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Lari Hotari <Lari(a)hotari.net<mailto:Lari(a)hotari.net>> wrote:
Hi,

I created a few tools to debug OOM problems since the application I was responsible for running on CF was failing constantly because of OOM problems. The problems I had, turned out not to be actual memory leaks in the Java application.

In the "cf events appname" log I would get entries like this:
2015-xx-xxTxx:xx:xx.00-0400 app.crash appname index: 1, reason: CRASHED, exit_description: out of memory, exit_status: 255

These type of entries are produced when the container goes over it's memory resource limits. It doesn't mean that there is a memory leak in the Java application. The container gets killed by the Linux kernel oom killer (https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/master/warden/README.md#limit-handle-mem-value) based on the resource limits set to the warden container.

The memory limit is specified in number of bytes. It is enforced using the control group associated with the container. When a container exceeds this limit, one or more of its processes will be killed by the kernel. Additionally, the Warden will be notified that an OOM happened and it subsequently tears down the container.
In my case it never got killed by the killjava.sh script that gets called in the java-buildpack when an OOM happens in Java.

This is the tool I built to debug the problems:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app
I deployed that app as part of the forked buildpack I'm using.
Please read the readme about what it's limitations are. It worked for me, but it might not work for you. It's opensource and you can fork it. :)

There is a solution in my toolcase for creating a heapdump and uploading that to S3:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/HeapDumpServlet.groovy
The readme explains how to setup Amazon S3 keys for this: https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app#amazon-s3-setup
Once you get a dump, you can then analyse the dump in a java profiler tool like YourKit.

I also have a solution that forks the java-buildpack modifies killjava.sh and adds a script that uploads the heapdump to S3 in the case of OOM:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack/commit/2d654b80f3bf1a0e0f1bae4f29cb85f56f5f8c46

In java-buildpack-diagnostics-app I have also other tools for getting Linux operation system specific memory information, for example:

https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MemoryInfoServlet.groovy
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MemorySmapServlet.groovy
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MallocInfoServlet.groovy

These tools are handy for looking at details of the Java process RSS memory usage growth.

There is also a solution for getting ssh shell access inside your application with tmate.io<http://tmate.io>:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/TmateSshServlet.groovy (this version is only compatible with the new "cflinuxfs2" stack)

It looks like there are serious problems on CloudFoundry with the memory sizing calculation. An application that doesn't have a OOM problem will get killed by the oom killer because the Java process will go over the memory limits.
I filed this issue: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/issues/157 , but that might not cover everything.

The workaround for that in my case was to add a native key under memory_sizes in open_jdk_jre.yml and set the minimum to 330M (that is for a 2GB total memory).
see example https://github.com/grails-samples/java-buildpack/blob/22e0f6a/config/open_jdk_jre.yml#L25
that was how I got the app I'm running on CF to stay within the memory bounds. I'm sure there is now also a way to get the keys without forking the buildpack. I could have also adjusted the percentage portions, but I wanted to set a hard minimum for this case.

It was also required to do some other tuning.

I added this to JAVA_OPTS:
-XX:CompressedClassSpaceSize=256M -XX:InitialCodeCacheSize=64M -XX:CodeCacheExpansionSize=1M -XX:CodeCacheMinimumFreeSpace=1M -XX:ReservedCodeCacheSize=200M -XX:MinMetaspaceExpansion=1M -XX:MaxMetaspaceExpansion=8M -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=96M
while trying to keep the Java process from growing in RSS memory size.

The memory overhead of a 64 bit Java process on Linux can be reduced by specifying these environment variables:

stack: cflinuxfs2
.
.
.
env:
MALLOC_ARENA_MAX: 2
MALLOC_MMAP_THRESHOLD_: 131072
MALLOC_TRIM_THRESHOLD_: 131072
MALLOC_TOP_PAD_: 131072
MALLOC_MMAP_MAX_: 65536

MALLOC_ARENA_MAX works only on cflinuxfs2 stack (the lucid64 stack has a buggy version of glibc).

explanation about MALLOC_ARENA_MAX from Heroku:
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/tuning-glibc-memory-behavior
some measurement data how it reduces memory consumption: https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/testing-cedar-14-memory-use

I have created a PR to add this to CF java-buildpack:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/pull/160

I also created an issues https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/issues/163 and https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/pull/159 .

I hope this information helps others struggling with OOM problems in CF.
I'm not saying that this is a ready made solution just for you. YMMV. It worked for me.

-Lari



On 15-04-29 10:53 AM, Head-Rapson, David wrote:
Hi,
I’m after some guidance on how to get profile Java apps in CF, in order to get to the bottom of memory issues.
We have an app that’s crashing every few hours with OOM error, most likely it’s a memory leak.
I’d like to profile the JVM and work out what’s eating memory, however tools like yourkit require connectivity INTO the JVM server (i.e. the warden container), either via host / port or via SSH.
Since warden containers cannot be connected to on ports other than for HTTP and cannot be SSHd to, neither of these works for me.

I tried installed a standalone JDK onto the warden container, however as soon as I ran ‘jmap’ to invoke the dump, warden cleaned up the container – most likely for memory over-consumption.

I had previously found a hack in the Weblogic buildpack (https://github.com/pivotal-cf/weblogic-buildpack/blob/master/docs/container-wls-monitoring.md) for modifying the start script which, when used with –XX:HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError, should copy any heapdump files to a file share somewhere. I have my own custom buildpack so I could use something similar.
Has anyone got a better solution than this?

We would love to use newrelic / app dynamics for this however we’re not allowed. And I’m not 100% certain they could help with this either.

Dave

The information transmitted is intended for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, privileged or copyrighted material. If you receive this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. Fidelity only gives information on products and services and does not give investment advice to retail clients based on individual circumstances. Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of Fidelity. All e-mails may be monitored. FIL Investments International (Reg. No.1448245), FIL Investment Services (UK) Limited (Reg. No. 2016555), FIL Pensions Management (Reg. No. 2015142) and Financial Administration Services Limited (Reg. No. 1629709) are authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority. FIL Life Insurance Limited (Reg No. 3406905) is authorised in the UK by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Registered offices at Oakhill House, 130 Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, Kent TN11 9DZ.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cloud Foundry Developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msgid/vcap-dev/DFFA4ADB9F3BC34194429921AB329336408CAB04%40UKFIL7006WIN.intl.intlroot.fid-intl.com<https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msgid/vcap-dev/DFFA4ADB9F3BC34194429921AB329336408CAB04%40UKFIL7006WIN.intl.intlroot.fid-intl.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to vcap-dev+unsubscribe(a)cloudfoundry.org<mailto:vcap-dev+unsubscribe(a)cloudfoundry.org>.


_______________________________________________
Cf-dev mailing list
Cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org<mailto:Cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev



--
Regards,

Daniel Jones
EngineerBetter.com


Re: Recipe to install Diego?

Ken Ojiri
 

Hi,

I have posted a sample BOSH deployment manifest to Gist.
https://gist.github.com/ozzozz/4c08c37863b703a75afc
I could deploy cf-release v207 and diego-release 0.1099.0 to AWS Tokyo
region by MicroBOSH.

I could also deploy cf-release and diego-release to OpenStack(Juno).
The manifests differs only in 'networks', 'cloud_properties' and 'stemcell'.

Regards,
Ken

---
<ozzozz(a)gmail.com>
Mitaka, Tokyo Japan

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Are there any examples or docs on installing Diego with bosh/microbosh?
Using the bosh-lite as a template, I'm tripping up on various parts. Is this
even a valid direction in installing?
Either AWS or Openstack..

Thanks,
Tom

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: [vcap-dev] Java OOM debugging

Lari Hotari <Lari@...>
 

fyi. Tomcat 8.0.20 might be consuming more memory than 8.0.18:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/issues/166#issuecomment-94517568

Other things we’ve tried:

- We set verbose garbage collection to verify there was no
memory size issues within the JVM. There wasn’t.

- We tried setting minimum memory for native, it had no
effect. The container still gets killed

- We tried adjusting the ‘memory heuristics’ so that they
added up to 80 rather than 100. This had the effect of causing a delay
in the container being killed. However it still was killed.
I think adjusting memory heuristics so that they add up to 80 doesn't
make a difference because the values aren't percentages.
The values are proportional weighting values used in the memory
calculation:
https://github.com/grails-samples/java-buildpack/blob/b4abf89/docs/jre-oracle_jre.md#memory-calculation

I found out that the only way to reserve "unused" memory is to set a
high value for the native memory lower bound in the memory_sizes.native
setting of config/open_jdk_jre.yml .
Example:
https://github.com/grails-samples/java-buildpack/blob/22e0f6a/config/open_jdk_jre.yml#L25



This seems like classic memory leak behaviour to me.
In my case it wasn't a classical Java memory leak, since the Java
application wasn't leaking memory. I was able to confirm this by getting
some heap dumps with the HeapDumpServlet
(https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/HeapDumpServlet.groovy)
and analyzing them.

In my case the JVM's RSS memory size is slowly growing. It probably is
some kind of memory leak since one process I've been monitoring now is
very close to the memory limit. The uptime is now almost 3 weeks.

Here is the latest diff of the meminfo report.
https://gist.github.com/lhotari/ee77decc2585f56cf3ad#file-meminfo_diff_example2-txt

From a Java perspective this isn't classical. The JVM heap isn't filling
up. The problem is that RSS size is slowly growing and will eventually
cause the Java process to cross the memory boundary so that the process
gets kill by the Linux kernel cgroups OOM killer.

RSS size might be growing because of many reasons. I have been able to
slow down the growth by doing the various MALLOC_ and JVM parameter
tuning (-XX:MinMetaspaceExpansion=1M -XX:CodeCacheExpansionSize=1M). I'm
able to get a longer uptime, but the problem isn't solved.

Lari


On 15-05-11 06:41 AM, Head-Rapson, David wrote:

Thanks for the continued advice.



We’ve hit on a key discovery after yet another a soak test this weekend.

- When we deploy using Tomcat 8.0.18 we don’t see the issue

- When we deploy using Tomcat 8.0.20 (same app version, same
CF space, same services bound, same JBP code version, same JRE
version, running at the same time), we see the crashes occurring after
just a couple of hours.



Ideally we’d go ahead with the memory calculations you mentioned
however we’re stuck on lucid64 because we’re using Pivotal CF 1.3.x &
we’re having upgrade issues to 1.4.x.

So we’re not able to adjust MALLOC_ARENA_MAX, nor are we able to view
RSS in pmap as you describe



Other things we’ve tried:

- We set verbose garbage collection to verify there was no
memory size issues within the JVM. There wasn’t.

- We tried setting minimum memory for native, it had no
effect. The container still gets killed

- We tried adjusting the ‘memory heuristics’ so that they
added up to 80 rather than 100. This had the effect of causing a delay
in the container being killed. However it still was killed.



This seems like classic memory leak behaviour to me.



*From:*Lari Hotari [mailto:lari.hotari(a)sagire.fi] *On Behalf Of *Lari
Hotari
*Sent:* 08 May 2015 16:25
*To:* Daniel Jones; Head-Rapson, David
*Cc:* cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
*Subject:* Re: [Cf-dev] [vcap-dev] Java OOM debugging




For my case, it turned out to be essential to reserve enough memory
for "native" in the JBP. For the 2GB total memory, I set the minimum
to 330M. With that setting I have been able to get over 2 weeks up
time by now.

I mentioned this in my previous email:

The workaround for that in my case was to add a native key under
memory_sizes in open_jdk_jre.yml and set the minimum to 330M (that is
for a 2GB total memory).
see example
https://github.com/grails-samples/java-buildpack/blob/22e0f6a/config/open_jdk_jre.yml#L25
that was how I got the app I'm running on CF to stay within the memory
bounds. I'm sure there is now also a way to get the keys without
forking the buildpack. I could have also adjusted the percentage
portions, but I wanted to set a hard minimum for this case.


I've been trying to get some insight by diffing the reports gathered
from the meminfo servlet
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MemoryInfoServlet.groovy


Here is such an example of a diff:
https://gist.github.com/lhotari/ee77decc2585f56cf3ad#file-meminfo_diff_example-txt

meminfo has pmap output included to get the report of the memory map
of the process. I have just noticed that most of the memory has
already been mmap:ed from the OS and it's just growing in RSS size.
For example:
< 00000000a7600000 1471488 1469556 1469556 rw--- [ anon ]
00000000a7600000 1471744 1470444 1470444 rw--- [ anon ]
The pmap output from lucid64 didn't include the RSS size, so you have
to use cflinuxfs2 for this. It's also better because of other reasons.
The glibc in lucid64 is old and has some bugs around the MALLOC_ARENA_MAX.

I was manually able to estimate the maximum size of the RSS size of
what the Java process will consume by simply picking the large
anon-blocks from the pmap report and calculating those blocks by the
allocated virtual size (VSS).
Based on this calculation, I picked the minimum of 330M for "native"
in open_jdk_jre.yml as I mentioned before.

It looks like these rows are for the Heap size:
< 00000000a7600000 1471488 1469556 1469556 rw--- [ anon ]
00000000a7600000 1471744 1470444 1470444 rw--- [ anon ]
It looks like the JVM doesn't fully allocate that block in RSS
initially and most of the growth of RSS size comes from that in my
case. In your case, it might be something different.

I also added a servlet for getting glibc malloc_info statistics in XML
format (). I haven't really analysed that information because of time
constraints and because I don't have a pressing problem any more. btw.
The malloc_info XML report is missing some key elements, that has been
added in later glibc versions
(https://github.com/bminor/glibc/commit/4d653a59ffeae0f46f76a40230e2cfa9587b7e7e).

If killjava.sh never fires and the app crashed with Warden out of
memory errors, then I believe it's the kernel's cgroups OOM killer
that has killed the container processes. I have found this location
where Warden oom notifier gets the OOM notification event:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/ad18bff/warden/lib/warden/container/features/mem_limit.rb#L70
This is the oom.c source code:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/ad18bff7dc56acbc55ff10bcc6045ebdf0b20c97/warden/src/oom/oom.c
. It reads the cgroups control files and receives events from the
kernel that way.

I'd suggest that you use pmap for the Java process after it has
started and calculate the maximum RSS size by calculating the VSS size
of the large anon blocks instead of RSS for the blocks that the Java
process has reserved for it's different memory areas (I think you
shouldn't . You should discard adding VSS for the
CompressedClassSpaceSize block.
After this calculation, add enough memory to the "native" parameter in
JBP until the RSS size calculated this way stays under the limit.
That's the only "method" I have come up by now.

It might be required to have some RSS space allocated for any zip/jar
files read by the Java process. I think that Java uses mmap files for
zip file reading by default and that might go on top of all other limits.
To test this theory, I'd suggest testing by adding
-Dsun.zip.disableMemoryMapping=true system property setting to
JAVA_OPTS. That disables the native mmap for zip/jar file reading. I
haven't had time to test this assumption.

I guess the only way to understand how Java allocates memory is to
look at the source code.
from http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk8u/ , the instructions to get
the source code of JDK 8:
hg clone http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8u/jdk8u;cd jdk8u;sh get_source.sh
This tool is really good for grepping and searching the source code:
http://geoff.greer.fm/ag/ <http://geoff.greer.fm/ag/>
On Ubuntu it's in silversearcher-ag package, "apt-get install
silversearcher-ag" and on MacOSX brew it's "brew install
the_silver_searcher".
This alias is pretty useful:
alias codegrep='ag --color --group --pager less -C 5'
Then you just search for the correct location in code by starting with
the tokens you know about:
codegrep MaxMetaspaceSize
this gives pretty good starting points in looking how the JDK
allocates memory.

So the JDK source code is only a few commands away.

It would be interesting to hear more about this if someone has the
time to dig in to this. This is about how far I got and I hope sharing
this information helps someone continue. :)


Lari
github/twitter: lhotari

On 15-05-08 10:02 AM, Daniel Jones wrote:

Hi Lari et al,



Thanks for your help Lari.



David and I are pairing on this issue, and we're yet to resolve
it. We're in the process of creating a repeatable test case (our
most crashy app makes calls to external services that need
mocking), but in the meantime, here's what we've seen.



Between Java Buildpack commit e89e546 and 17162df, we see apps
crashing with Warden out of memory errors. killjava.sh never
fires, and this has led us to believe that the kernel is shooting
a cgroup process in the head after the cgroup oversteps its memory
limit. We cannot find any evidence of the OOM killer firing in any
logs, but we may not be looking in the right place.



The JBP is setting heap to be 70%, metaspace to be 15% (with max
set to the same as initial), 5% for "stack", 5% for "normalised
stack" and 10% for "native". We do not understand why this adds up
to 105%, but haven't looked into the JBP algorithm yet. Any
pointers on what "normalised stack" is would be much appreciated,
as this doesn't appear in the list of heuristics supplied via app env.



Other team members tried applying the same settings that you
suggested - thanks for this. Apps still crash with these settings,
albeit less frequently.



After reading the blog you linked to
(http://java.dzone.com/articles/java-8-permgen-metaspace) we
wondered whether the increased /reserved /metaspace claimed after
metaspace GC might be causing a problem; however we reused the
test code to create a metaspace leak in a CF app and saw metaspace
GCs occur correctly, and memory usage never grow over
MaxMetaspaceSize. This figures, as the committed metaspace is
still less than MaxMetaspaceSize, and the reserved appears to be
whatever RAM is free across the whole DEA.



We noted that an Oracle blog
(https://blogs.oracle.com/poonam/entry/about_g1_garbage_collector_permanent)
mentions that the metaspace size parameters are approximate. We're
currently wondering if native allocations by Tomcat (APR, NIO) are
taking up more container memory, and so when the metaspace fills,
it's creeping slightly over the limit and triggering the kernel's
OOM killer.



Any suggestions would be much appreciated. We've tried to resist
tweaking heuristics blindly, but are running out of options as
we're struggling to figure out how the Java process is using
/committed/ memory. pmap seems to show virtual memory, and so it's
hard to see if things like the metaspace or NIO ByteBuffers are
nabbing too much and trigger the kernel's OOM killer.



Thanks for all your help,



Daniel Jones & David Head-Rapson



On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 8:07 PM, Lari Hotari <Lari(a)hotari.net
<mailto:Lari(a)hotari.net>> wrote:

Hi,

I created a few tools to debug OOM problems since the application
I was responsible for running on CF was failing constantly because
of OOM problems. The problems I had, turned out not to be actual
memory leaks in the Java application.

In the "cf events appname" log I would get entries like this:
2015-xx-xxTxx:xx:xx.00-0400 app.crash appname
index: 1, reason: CRASHED, exit_description: out of memory,
exit_status: 255

These type of entries are produced when the container goes over
it's memory resource limits. It doesn't mean that there is a
memory leak in the Java application. The container gets killed by
the Linux kernel oom killer
(https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/master/warden/README.md#limit-handle-mem-value)
based on the resource limits set to the warden container.

The memory limit is specified in number of bytes. It is enforced
using the control group associated with the container. When a
container exceeds this limit, one or more of its processes will be
killed by the kernel. Additionally, the Warden will be notified
that an OOM happened and it subsequently tears down the container.

In my case it never got killed by the killjava.sh script that gets
called in the java-buildpack when an OOM happens in Java.

This is the tool I built to debug the problems:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app
I deployed that app as part of the forked buildpack I'm using.
Please read the readme about what it's limitations are. It worked
for me, but it might not work for you. It's opensource and you can
fork it. :)

There is a solution in my toolcase for creating a heapdump and
uploading that to S3:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/HeapDumpServlet.groovy
The readme explains how to setup Amazon S3 keys for this:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app#amazon-s3-setup
Once you get a dump, you can then analyse the dump in a java
profiler tool like YourKit.

I also have a solution that forks the java-buildpack modifies
killjava.sh and adds a script that uploads the heapdump to S3 in
the case of OOM:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack/commit/2d654b80f3bf1a0e0f1bae4f29cb85f56f5f8c46

In java-buildpack-diagnostics-app I have also other tools for
getting Linux operation system specific memory information, for
example:

https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MemoryInfoServlet.groovy
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MemorySmapServlet.groovy
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/MallocInfoServlet.groovy

These tools are handy for looking at details of the Java process
RSS memory usage growth.

There is also a solution for getting ssh shell access inside your
application with tmate.io <http://tmate.io>:
https://github.com/lhotari/java-buildpack-diagnostics-app/blob/master/src/main/groovy/io/github/lhotari/jbpdiagnostics/TmateSshServlet.groovy
(this version is only compatible with the new "cflinuxfs2" stack)

It looks like there are serious problems on CloudFoundry with the
memory sizing calculation. An application that doesn't have a OOM
problem will get killed by the oom killer because the Java process
will go over the memory limits.
I filed this issue:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/issues/157 , but
that might not cover everything.

The workaround for that in my case was to add a native key under
memory_sizes in open_jdk_jre.yml and set the minimum to 330M (that
is for a 2GB total memory).
see example
https://github.com/grails-samples/java-buildpack/blob/22e0f6a/config/open_jdk_jre.yml#L25
that was how I got the app I'm running on CF to stay within the
memory bounds. I'm sure there is now also a way to get the keys
without forking the buildpack. I could have also adjusted the
percentage portions, but I wanted to set a hard minimum for this case.

It was also required to do some other tuning.

I added this to JAVA_OPTS:
-XX:CompressedClassSpaceSize=256M -XX:InitialCodeCacheSize=64M
-XX:CodeCacheExpansionSize=1M -XX:CodeCacheMinimumFreeSpace=1M
-XX:ReservedCodeCacheSize=200M -XX:MinMetaspaceExpansion=1M
-XX:MaxMetaspaceExpansion=8M -XX:MaxDirectMemorySize=96M
while trying to keep the Java process from growing in RSS memory size.

The memory overhead of a 64 bit Java process on Linux can be
reduced by specifying these environment variables:

stack: cflinuxfs2
.
.
.
env:
MALLOC_ARENA_MAX: 2
MALLOC_MMAP_THRESHOLD_: 131072
MALLOC_TRIM_THRESHOLD_: 131072
MALLOC_TOP_PAD_: 131072
MALLOC_MMAP_MAX_: 65536

MALLOC_ARENA_MAX works only on cflinuxfs2 stack (the lucid64 stack
has a buggy version of glibc).

explanation about MALLOC_ARENA_MAX from Heroku:
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/tuning-glibc-memory-behavior
some measurement data how it reduces memory consumption:
https://devcenter.heroku.com/articles/testing-cedar-14-memory-use

I have created a PR to add this to CF java-buildpack:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/pull/160

I also created an issues
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/issues/163 and
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/java-buildpack/pull/159 .

I hope this information helps others struggling with OOM problems
in CF.
I'm not saying that this is a ready made solution just for you.
YMMV. It worked for me.

-Lari




On 15-04-29 10:53 AM, Head-Rapson, David wrote:

Hi,

I’m after some guidance on how to get profile Java apps in CF,
in order to get to the bottom of memory issues.

We have an app that’s crashing every few hours with OOM error,
most likely it’s a memory leak.

I’d like to profile the JVM and work out what’s eating memory,
however tools like yourkit require connectivity INTO the JVM
server (i.e. the warden container), either via host / port or
via SSH.

Since warden containers cannot be connected to on ports other
than for HTTP and cannot be SSHd to, neither of these works
for me.



I tried installed a standalone JDK onto the warden container,
however as soon as I ran ‘jmap’ to invoke the dump, warden
cleaned up the container – most likely for memory
over-consumption.



I had previously found a hack in the Weblogic buildpack
(https://github.com/pivotal-cf/weblogic-buildpack/blob/master/docs/container-wls-monitoring.md)
for modifying the start script which, when used with
–XX:HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError, should copy any heapdump files
to a file share somewhere. I have my own custom buildpack so
I could use something similar.

Has anyone got a better solution than this?



We would love to use newrelic / app dynamics for this however
we’re not allowed. And I’m not 100% certain they could help
with this either.



Dave



The information transmitted is intended for the person or
entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential,
privileged or copyrighted material. If you receive this in
error, please contact the sender and delete the material from
any computer. Fidelity only gives information on products and
services and does not give investment advice to retail clients
based on individual circumstances. Any comments or statements
made are not necessarily those of Fidelity. All e-mails may be
monitored. FIL Investments International (Reg. No.1448245),
FIL Investment Services (UK) Limited (Reg. No. 2016555), FIL
Pensions Management (Reg. No. 2015142) and Financial
Administration Services Limited (Reg. No. 1629709) are
authorised and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct
Authority. FIL Life Insurance Limited (Reg No. 3406905) is
authorised in the UK by the Prudential Regulation Authority
and regulated in the UK by the Financial Conduct Authority and
the Prudential Regulation Authority. Registered offices at
Oakhill House, 130 Tonbridge Road, Hildenborough, Tonbridge,
Kent TN11 9DZ.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "Cloud Foundry Developers" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msgid/vcap-dev/DFFA4ADB9F3BC34194429921AB329336408CAB04%40UKFIL7006WIN.intl.intlroot.fid-intl.com
<https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/d/msgid/vcap-dev/DFFA4ADB9F3BC34194429921AB329336408CAB04%40UKFIL7006WIN.intl.intlroot.fid-intl.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from
it, send an email to vcap-dev+unsubscribe(a)cloudfoundry.org
<mailto:vcap-dev+unsubscribe(a)cloudfoundry.org>.




_______________________________________________
Cf-dev mailing list
Cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org <mailto:Cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev





--

Regards,



Daniel Jones

EngineerBetter.com



Re: Purge files on NFS or S3?

Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman@...>
 

Not sure if this is what you need, but you can manually sync + delete files
from a local filesystem (including NFS mount) to/from S3:

http://s3tools.org/s3cmd-sync

... with `—delete-removed` option

-- Chad

On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:19 AM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

john, i think the resource files may grow forever right now without
intervention.

i'm pretty confident that when apps are deleted that their droplets are
deleted with them and that proper garbage collection occurs with that.

i'm unaware of any NFS file system to s3 blob migration. you would need
to update the CC_DB references too i'm pretty sure. i'm interested if you
find out more.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM, John Wong <gokoproject(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

I just looked at our disk usage on NFS server. We have used like 200G so
far, and I wonder if there's a systematic way to purge files we don't need
(or how do I know I don't need them)?

Similarly, if I were to replace NFS server with S3 instead, does the
existing process (if any) work with S3?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


--
Thank you,

James Bayer

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: Purge files on NFS or S3?

John Wong
 

Hi all

Thanks. No I was just curious if there was a way to identify what to remove
in the blobstore because I was surprised the size of my blobstore at this
point. I will check what's in there (maybe James is right it is mostly
resource files). I am currently using NFS. I can build a CF with S3 as my
blobstore.

John


On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Not sure if this is what you need, but you can manually sync + delete
files from a local filesystem (including NFS mount) to/from S3:

http://s3tools.org/s3cmd-sync

... with `—delete-removed` option

-- Chad


On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:19 AM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

john, i think the resource files may grow forever right now without
intervention.

i'm pretty confident that when apps are deleted that their droplets are
deleted with them and that proper garbage collection occurs with that.

i'm unaware of any NFS file system to s3 blob migration. you would need
to update the CC_DB references too i'm pretty sure. i'm interested if you
find out more.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM, John Wong <gokoproject(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi

I just looked at our disk usage on NFS server. We have used like 200G
so far, and I wonder if there's a systematic way to purge files we don't
need (or how do I know I don't need them)?

Similarly, if I were to replace NFS server with S3 instead, does the
existing process (if any) work with S3?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


--
Thank you,

James Bayer

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: Purge files on NFS or S3?

Dieu Cao <dcao@...>
 

An option could be to just delete all the resource files on the blobstore.
The effect would be that for binaries that would have been matched, they
would be uploaded again on the first new push including those binaries.

On Monday, May 11, 2015, John Wong <gokoproject(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi all

Thanks. No I was just curious if there was a way to identify what to
remove in the blobstore because I was surprised the size of my blobstore at
this point. I will check what's in there (maybe James is right it is mostly
resource files). I am currently using NFS. I can build a CF with S3 as my
blobstore.

John


On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Chad Woolley <thewoolleyman(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','thewoolleyman(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:

Not sure if this is what you need, but you can manually sync + delete
files from a local filesystem (including NFS mount) to/from S3:

http://s3tools.org/s3cmd-sync

... with `—delete-removed` option

-- Chad


On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 12:19 AM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','jbayer(a)pivotal.io');>> wrote:

john, i think the resource files may grow forever right now without
intervention.

i'm pretty confident that when apps are deleted that their droplets are
deleted with them and that proper garbage collection occurs with that.

i'm unaware of any NFS file system to s3 blob migration. you would need
to update the CC_DB references too i'm pretty sure. i'm interested if you
find out more.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 1:14 PM, John Wong <gokoproject(a)gmail.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','gokoproject(a)gmail.com');>> wrote:

Hi

I just looked at our disk usage on NFS server. We have used like 200G
so far, and I wonder if there's a systematic way to purge files we don't
need (or how do I know I don't need them)?

Similarly, if I were to replace NFS server with S3 instead, does the
existing process (if any) work with S3?

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org');>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


--
Thank you,

James Bayer

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org');>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org');>
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev


Re: Recipe to install Diego?

王天青 <wang.tianqing.cn at gmail.com...>
 

Hi Ken,

How do you generate the manifest file?

Thanks
Best Regards~!
Grissom

On Mon, May 11, 2015 at 9:17 PM OzzOzz <ozzozz(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I have posted a sample BOSH deployment manifest to Gist.
https://gist.github.com/ozzozz/4c08c37863b703a75afc
I could deploy cf-release v207 and diego-release 0.1099.0 to AWS Tokyo
region by MicroBOSH.

I could also deploy cf-release and diego-release to OpenStack(Juno).
The manifests differs only in 'networks', 'cloud_properties' and
'stemcell'.

Regards,
Ken

---
<ozzozz(a)gmail.com>
Mitaka, Tokyo Japan


On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 8:57 PM, Tom Sherrod <tom.sherrod(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

Are there any examples or docs on installing Diego with bosh/microbosh?
Using the bosh-lite as a template, I'm tripping up on various parts. Is
this
even a valid direction in installing?
Either AWS or Openstack..

Thanks,
Tom

_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev
_______________________________________________
cf-dev mailing list
cf-dev(a)lists.cloudfoundry.org
https://lists.cloudfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/cf-dev

61 - 80 of 9377