https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/releases/tag/v209

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-community/cf-docs-contrib/wiki/v209

Best,

Shannon Coen
Product Manager, Cloud Foundry
Pivotal, Inc.

We map our dea's , dopplers and traffic controllers in 5 logical zones
using the various zone properties of doppler, metron_agent and
traffic_controller. This aligns to our physical failure domains in
openstack.

During a recent load test we discovered that zones 4 and 5 were receiving
no load at all, all traffic went to zones 1-3.

What would cause this unbalanced distribution? I have a single app running
30 instances and have verified it is evenly balanced across all 5 zones (6
instances in each). I have additionally verified that each logical zone in
the bosh yml contains 1 dea, doppler server and traffic controller.

Thanks,
John

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Mike Dalessio <mdalessio(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

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.

This sounds cool. Can't wait to see what you guys come up with here. I've
been thinking about the subject a bit, but haven't come up with any great
ideas.

The first thought that came to mind was a transparent network proxy, like
Squid, which would just automatically cache the files as they're accessed.
It's nice and simple, nothing with the build pack would need to change or
be altered to take advantage of it, but I'm not sure how that would work in
a completely offline environments as I'm not sure how you'd seed the cache.

Another thought was for the DEA to provided some additional hints to the
build packs about how they could locate binaries. Perhaps a special
environment variable like CF_BP_REPO=http://repo.system.domain/. The build
pack could then take that and use it to generate URLs to it's binary
resources. A variation on that would be to check this repo first, and then
fall back to some global external repo if available (i.e. most recent stuff
is on CF_BP_REPO, older stuff needs Internet access to download). Yet
another variation would be for the CF_BP_REPO to start small and grow as
things are requested. For example, if you request a file that doesn't
exist CF_BP_REPO would try to download it from the Internet, cache it and
stream it back to the app.

Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud now. Thanks for the update!

Dan

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

Hi, all,

The Runtime PMC met on Tuesday, 2015-05-19. Permanent notes are available
at:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry/pmc-notes/blob/master/Runtime/2015-05-19-runtime.md

and are included below.

Best,
Eric

---

*# Runtime PMC Meeting 2015-05-19*

*## Agenda*

1. Current Backlog and Priorities
1. PMC Lifecycle Activities
1. Open Discussion


*## Attendees*

* Chip Childers, Cloud Foundry Foundation
* Matt Sykes, IBM
* Atul Kshirsagar, GE
* Erik Jasiak, Pivotal
* Sree Tummidi, Pivotal
* Eric Malm, Pivotal
* Shannon Coen, Pivotal
* Will Pragnell, Pivotal
* Marco Nicosia, Pivotal


*## Current Backlog and Priorities*

*### Runtime*

* Shannon filling in for Dieu this week
* support for context-based routing; delivered
* investigating query performance
* addressing outstanding pull requests
* bump to UAA
* issues with loggregator in acceptance environment, blocker to cutting
stabilization release for collector


*### Diego*

* ssh access largely done, currently working routing ssh traffic to proxy
* performance breadth: completed 50 cell test, investigating bulk
processing in jobs that do so
* refining CI to improve recording compatible versions of Diego and CF
* processing of PRs from Garden and Lattice are prioritized
* Stories queued up to investigate securing identified gaps in Diego


*### UAA*

* 2.2.6, 2.3.0 releases, notes available
* upgraded Spring versions
* update to JRE expected in v210 of cf-release
* more LDAP work, chaining in identity zone: both LDAP and internal
authentication can work simultaneously
* support for New Relic instrumentation, will appear after v209
* upcoming:
* risk assessment of persistent token storage: understand performance
implications
* starting work on password policy: multi-tenant for default zone and
additional zones
* OAuth client groups: authorization to manage clients
* SAML support
* question from Matt Sykes:
* would like to discuss IBM PR for UAA DB migration strategy with the team


*### Garden*

* investigating management of disk quotas
* replacing C/Bash code with Go to enable instrumentation, security, and
maintainability
* planning to remove default VCAP user in Garden


*### Lattice*

* nearly done with last stories before releasing 0.2.5
* Cisco contributed openstack support
* baking deployment automation into published images on some providers
* improved documentation for how to install lattice on VMs
* next work planned is support for CF-like app lifecycle management
(pushing code in addition to docker)


*### TCP Router*

* building out icebox to reflect inception
* question from Matt Sykes:
* how to incorporate new project into PMC? IBM parties surprised with
announcement at Summit
* Chip: inconsistent policy so far; maybe this belongs alongside gorouter
in Runtime PMC
* working on process for review, discussion of incubating project
* Shannon: first step will be to produce proposal, discuss with community


*### LAMB*

* big rewind project on datadog firehose nozzle: limitation in doppler
about size of messages, dropping messages
* working to resolve those problems: improving number of concurrent reads,
marshaling efficiency
* seeing increases in message loss in Runtime environments: may be other
source of contention, working with them to resolve
* Datadog nozzle work:
* looking at developing a Graphite nozzle from community work
* will investigate community interest in Graphite support
* naming alignment from loggregator to doppler
* instrumentation of statsd for larger message sizes, work to phase out
collector and NATS in CF
* goal is to stream metrics directly to firehose
* question from Matt Sykes: story about protobuf protocol proposal
* best way to support vm tagging in log messages: distinguish between types
of data in log messages
* goal would be to improve the implementation: more generic API for message
data; understand implications of this change


*### Greenhouse*

* Accepted code from HP
* will get support from Microsoft with regard to interest in entire
Microsoft stack


*## PMC Lifecycle Activities*

None to report.

*## Open Discussion*

None to report.

i wanted to share the great news that the new skinny buildpacks reduced

the size of cf-release from 5.2gb -> 3.5gb!

This is great news, good job buildpack team!

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 4:40 PM, James Bayer <jbayer(a)pivotal.io> wrote:

skinny buildpacks refer to each buildpack no longer shipping old
unsupported or insecure versions of runtimes. you can still customize the
buildpacks to include older runtimes by building the buildpack yourself
with the admin buildpack feature.


On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Long Nguyen <long.nguyen11288(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Wooot! Thanks James. Is skinny just having latest 2 version of language?


On May 21, 2015 at 1:42:11 AM, James Bayer (jbayer(a)pivotal.io) wrote:

more info is coming soon, we don't have all of the release notes
published yet because dieu and shannon are out of the office. i wanted to
share the great news that the new skinny buildpacks reduced the size of
cf-release from 5.2gb -> 3.5gb!

the "what's in the deploy" file is awaiting approval b/c of mailman
limits.

thanks buildpacks team!

--
Thank you,

James Bayer
_______________________________________________
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

Hi,

From the architecture point of view I understand that there are no service
explicitly associated with CF.

However, the following doc is very confusing:
http://docs.cloudfoundry.org/devguide/services/managed.html

Would be great if some one can explain the meaning of manages services her.

Thanks,
Kinjal

yes, this has affected me

--
Thank you,

James Bayer

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Matthew Sykes <matthew.sykes(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

The vcap-dev list used to use a Reply-To header pointing back to the list
such that replying to a post would automatically go back to the list. The
current mailman configuration for cf-dev does not set a Reply-To header and
the default behavior is to reply to the author.

While I understand the pros and cons of setting the Reply-To header, this
new behavior has bitten me several times and I've found myself re-posting a
response to the list instead of just the author.

I'm interested in knowing if anyone else has been bitten by this behavior
and would like a Reply-To header added back...

+1 and +1

Dan

Thanks.

--
Matthew Sykes
matthew.sykes(a)gmail.com

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

The vcap-dev list used to use a Reply-To header pointing back to the list
such that replying to a post would automatically go back to the list. The
current mailman configuration for cf-dev does not set a Reply-To header and
the default behavior is to reply to the author.

While I understand the pros and cons of setting the Reply-To header, this
new behavior has bitten me several times and I've found myself re-posting a
response to the list instead of just the author.

I'm interested in knowing if anyone else has been bitten by this behavior
and would like a Reply-To header added back...

Thanks.

--
Matthew Sykes
matthew.sykes(a)gmail.com

Warden explicitly disables access to the container host. If you move up to
a more recent level of cf-release, that behavior is configurable with the
`allow_host_access` flag. When that flag is true, this line is skipped:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/4f1e5c049a12199fdd1f29cde15c9a786bd5fac8/warden/root/linux/net.sh#L128

At the level you're at, that rule is always specified so you'd have to
manually change it.

https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/17f34e2d7ff1994856a61961210a82e83f24ecac/warden/root/linux/net.sh#L124

--
Matthew Sykes
matthew.sykes(a)gmail.com

As far as I know, it is so by design - in order to setup a connection to
the same host you need to explicitly tell Warden to allow external traffic
-
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/blob/master/warden/README.md#net-handle-out-addressmaskport
.

In more details:

1) ssh into your VM with DEA
2) find your Warden handle in /var/vcap/data/dea_ng/db/instances.json -
"warden_handle" field for the hash describing your specific application
("application_id" value is the same as cf app --guid)
3) cd into /var/vcap/packages/warden/warden
4) bundle install
5) ./bin/warden --socket /var/vcap/data/warden/warden.sock
6) > net_out --handle <your handle from instances.json> --port <your port
to open>

This is for CF v208, an earlier version of Warden client may have slightly
different API - see command help.

--
Lev Berman

Altoros - Cloud Foundry deployment, training and integration

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

Hi all

I have an app A and a service B, service B is running on the dea
server(ip 10.0.0.254), app A need to connect with service B through tcp, it
works normally in my LAN, but when I push A to cf, it cannot connect to B,
then I execute bin/wsh to get into the container and ping the host ip,
it's unreachable, as below:







*root(a)18mkbd9n808:~# ping 10.0.0.254PING 10.0.0.254 (10.0.0.254) 56(84)
bytes of data.From 10.0.0.254 icmp_seq=1 Destination Port UnreachableFrom
10.0.0.254 icmp_seq=2 Destination Port Unreachable^C--- 10.0.0.254 ping
statistics ---2 packets transmitted, 0 received, +2 errors, 100% packet
loss, time 1002ms*

But if I ping another host in the LAN. it can be reached!!!








*root(a)18mkbd9n808:~# ping 10.0.0.253PING 10.0.0.253 (10.0.0.253) 56(84)
bytes of data.64 bytes from 10.0.0.253 <http://10.0.0.253>: icmp_seq=1
ttl=63 time=1.60 ms64 bytes from 10.0.0.253 <http://10.0.0.253>: icmp_seq=2
ttl=63 time=0.421 ms^C--- 10.0.0.253 ping statistics ---2 packets
transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1001msrtt min/avg/max/mdev =
0.421/1.013/1.606/0.593 ms*

It's wired!!! my cf-release is cf-175 and I have only one dea server.Does
anyone met this situation before? thanks!

Hi All,

I found the issue , got the details from deploy.yml

thanks
Balaramaraju

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Balaramaraju JLSP <balaramaraju(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi All,

using the *https://github.com/yudai/cf_nise_installer
<https://github.com/yudai/cf_nise_installer>* i install local CF and able
to the start services ".\scripts\start.sh"

logs:-

All processes have been started!
-u admin -p c1oudc0w --skip-ssl-validation'ip.io
Download CF CLI from https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli

but while setting up the endpiont is it failing

vagrant(a)vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:/vagrant$ cf api --skip-ssl-validation
https://api.vagrant-ubuntu-tip.io-64.io
Setting api endpoint to https://api.vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64.io...
FAILED
Error performing request: Get
https://api.vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64.ip.io/v2/info: dial tcp
50.21.180.100:443: i/o timeout

any help is appreciated .

--
Balaramaraju

--
J L S P Balaramaraju

Hi All,

using the *https://github.com/yudai/cf_nise_installer
<https://github.com/yudai/cf_nise_installer>* i install local CF and able
to the start services ".\scripts\start.sh"

logs:-

All processes have been started!
-u admin -p c1oudc0w --skip-ssl-validation'ip.io
Download CF CLI from https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli

but while setting up the endpiont is it failing

vagrant(a)vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64:/vagrant$ cf api --skip-ssl-validation
https://api.vagrant-ubuntu-tip.io-64.io
Setting api endpoint to https://api.vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64.io...
FAILED
Error performing request: Get
https://api.vagrant-ubuntu-trusty-64.ip.io/v2/info: dial tcp
50.21.180.100:443: i/o timeout

any help is appreciated .

--
Balaramaraju

skinny buildpacks refer to each buildpack no longer shipping old
unsupported or insecure versions of runtimes. you can still customize the
buildpacks to include older runtimes by building the buildpack yourself
with the admin buildpack feature.

On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Long Nguyen <long.nguyen11288(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

Wooot! Thanks James. Is skinny just having latest 2 version of language?


On May 21, 2015 at 1:42:11 AM, James Bayer (jbayer(a)pivotal.io) wrote:

more info is coming soon, we don't have all of the release notes published
yet because dieu and shannon are out of the office. i wanted to share the
great news that the new skinny buildpacks reduced the size of cf-release
from 5.2gb -> 3.5gb!

the "what's in the deploy" file is awaiting approval b/c of mailman limits.

thanks buildpacks team!

--
Thank you,

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

--
Thank you,

James Bayer

Wooot! Thanks James. Is skinny just having latest 2 version of language?

That's an incredible savings and excellent to see, thanks Buildpacks team!
:)

more info is coming soon, we don't have all of the release notes published
yet because dieu and shannon are out of the office. i wanted to share the
great news that the new skinny buildpacks reduced the size of cf-release
from 5.2gb -> 3.5gb!

the "what's in the deploy" file is awaiting approval b/c of mailman limits.

thanks buildpacks team!

--
Thank you,

James Bayer

more info is coming soon, we don't have all of the release notes published
yet because dieu and shannon are out of the office. i wanted to share the
great news that the new skinny buildpacks reduced the size of cf-release
from 5.2gb -> 3.5gb!

thanks buildpacks team!

--
Thank you,

James Bayer

Howdy all,

We had a meeting of the Buildpacks PMC today, which was only lightly
attended and we adjourned quickly.

Permanent notes are at:

https://github.com/cloudfoundry/pmc-notes/blob/master/Buildpacks/2015-05-20-buildpacks.md

but I've helpfully also included a snapshot of those notes below.

Happy Wednesday!
-mike

---

*# Buildpacks PMC Meeting 2015-05-20*

*## Agenda*

1. Update on Java Buildpack (Ryan Morgan)
2. Update on core Buildpacks (Mike Dalessio)
3. Open Discussion


*## Attendees*

* Chip Childers, Cloud Foundry Foundation
* Mike Dalessio, Pivotal (PMC lead)
* Matthew Sykes, IBM


*## Update on Java Buildpack (Ryan Morgan)*

* Added support for Wily Introscope.
* Memory calculator re-written in Go and supports java memory
configuration at startup time rather than staging time. Some details
on this feature were posted to cf-dev by Chris Frost last week.
* Team currently discussing how to 'pin' buildpack dependency versions
to allow for repeatable offline buildpack creation.
* Team also discussing moving from Jenkins to Concourse for CI.

Mike will follow up with the team to discuss how `buildpack-packager`
might be used to pin cached dependencies.


*## Update on core Buildpacks (Mike Dalessio)*

The [binary buildpack][binary] was added into `cf-release` last week
([PR here][binary-pr]), and moved into the `cloudfoundry` github
org. This is the same idea as what's commonly called a "null"
buildpack, where developers can simply execute a binary at runtime.

The [staticfile buildpack][static] was added into `cf-release` last
week ([PR here][static-pr]), and moved into the `cloudfoundry` github
org. Originally created by Dr. Nic, this buildpacks allows a static
website to be published behind nginx, and for nginx to be configured
in a few interesting ways.

At long last, [skinny buildpacks][skinny] made it into `cf-release`
([PRs here][skinny-pr]). There was also some interesting discussion on
the mailing lists, both [old][skinny-thread1] and
[new][skinny-thread2].

Notable near-term goals:

* ability to generate and test CF rootfs-specific binaries; and tooling for
CF operators to do the same
* work more closely with the java-buildpacks team


*## Open Discussion*

Mike: Just want to note that IBM open-sourced their linux-based ASP.NET/Mono
buildpack this week. Looks awesome!

https://github.com/cloudfoundry-community/asp.net5-buildpack

---

[binary]: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/binary-buildpack
[binary-pr]: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/pull/677
[static]: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/staticfile-buildpack
[static-pr]: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/pull/668
[skinny]:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/buildpack-packager/issues/4
[skinny-pr]:
https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+buildpack+skinny+
[skinny-thread1]:
https://groups.google.com/a/cloudfoundry.org/forum/#!searchin/vcap-dev/addressing$20buildpack/vcap-dev/1HmGK4wU3Rc/lk186OOtdbMJ
[skinny-thread2]:
http://lists.cloudfoundry.org/pipermail/cf-dev/2015-May/000005.html