Date   
Re: Mapping ORGs and Space permissions via LDAP

Mark Coumounduros
 

Hello Cloud Foundry:

Just checking back on whether there are ways to control access to org or spaces using UAA scopes (i.e., mapping LDAP Groups to Cloud Foundry Orgs and/or Spaces).

I last posted to the community back in Feb 2017 and am hoping this feature is now enabled for end users (or forthcoming).  Cheers!

NOTICE: [dotnet-core-buildpack] End of support for Node.js 6.x after 2019-04-28

Elliott Shanks
 

The default version of Node.js in the dotnet-core buildpack will change from the latest 6.x version to the latest 10.x version in the first release of the dotnet-core buildpack after April 28, 2019. Due to the end of upstream support for Node.js 6.x in April, all buildpack users should ensure that their dotnet-core apps run on a minimum buildpack supported version of Node.js 10.x or later.

For more information about Node.js 10.x or LTS timelines for 10.x, refer to: https://github.com/nodejs/Release

For more information about supported Node.js versions in the .NET-core buildpack, refer to: https://buildpacks.cloudfoundry.org/#/buildpacks


--
Respectfully, 

Elliott Shanks
CF Buildpacks PM

NOTICE: [Ruby-buildpack] End of support for Node.js 6.x after 2019-04-28

Elliott Shanks
 

The default version of Node.js in the Ruby buildpack will change from the latest 6.x version to the latest 10.x version in the first release of the Ruby buildpack after April 28, 2019. Due to the end of upstream support for Node.js 6.x in April, all buildpack users should ensure that their Ruby apps run on a minimum buildpack supported version of Node.js 10.x or later.

For more information about Node.js 10.x or LTS timelines for 10.x, refer to: https://github.com/nodejs/Release

For more information about supported Node.js versions in the Ruby buildpack, refer to: https://buildpacks.cloudfoundry.org/#/buildpacks


--
Respectfully, 

Elliott Shanks
CF Buildpacks PM

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Thank you all for your replies and input!

We’ve decided to go forward with treating this as a bug (and not an expected behaviour) and hence not a breaking change. 

Best regards,
Oleksii,
on behalf of SAPI team

PS: If somebody’s scripts/automations are still using `cf marketplace` to list non-available plans, use `cf service-access` instead.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 8:04 PM Sascha Matzke <sascha.matzke@...> wrote:
Hi,

I'm totally in favour of fixing this. The current behaviour always felt wrong and I'm looking forward to the change. 

Best,

Sascha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476




--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Sascha Matzke
 

Hi,

I'm totally in favour of fixing this. The current behaviour always felt wrong and I'm looking forward to the change. 

Best,

Sascha

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 11:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476


Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Dave Ashby
 

Can't talk now.

On Mar 26, 2019 6:02 AM, Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Sorry, the calendar was all mixed up, it’s Thursday 28.03

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:17 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Of course, we’re just trying “to play the card” that the original behaviour was a bug in the first place.

As an admin, If you want to see enabled and disabled plans as a result of the same command, you should use `cf service-access` and **not** `cf marketplace`.

Best regards,
Oleksii

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM Norm Abramovitz <norm@...> wrote:
If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC





--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Sorry, the calendar was all mixed up, it’s Thursday 28.03


On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 6:17 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Of course, we’re just trying “to play the card” that the original behaviour was a bug in the first place.

As an admin, If you want to see enabled and disabled plans as a result of the same command, you should use `cf service-access` and **not** `cf marketplace`.

Best regards,
Oleksii

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM Norm Abramovitz <norm@...> wrote:
If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC





--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Of course, we’re just trying “to play the card” that the original behaviour was a bug in the first place.

As an admin, If you want to see enabled and disabled plans as a result of the same command, you should use `cf service-access` and **not** `cf marketplace`.

Best regards,
Oleksii

On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:05 PM Norm Abramovitz <norm@...> wrote:
If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC





--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Buildpack deep dive questions...

Cade Thacker
 

Long time reader... first time poster :D 

I'm really digging and deconstruction a few different buildpacks trying to understand how they really work.  supply, compile, detect, etc.  Especially the multi buildpack POV. 

So I think i'm starting to get the details straight but I have some basic architecture questions. 

1) For example, if the core functionality of the buildpack is a compiled app (like go or java) and not a scripted language but the github repo only contains the source code then somewhere in this process it must be compiled.  If I want to use the buildpack as an online buildpack that means that the buildpack has to be "built" after it is cloned down during staging.  Is this the correct path?  Or should it be built and the binary pushed back with the code into github? This seems wrong. Somebody hit me with the clue stick. 

2) Second, somewhat tangent question. I know that CloudFoundry is doing tons of work around envoy/istio, but we have a more pressing need right now.  My company has a need to connect many apps and CloudFoundry is just one small part of our runtime. Would it be possible to write a final build pack for envoy and have it basically bind to PORT and then pass the calls to whatever was the 2nd to last buildpack? java, ruby, go, etc.  Forgive me if this is a silly question, but trying to find the edge of this new multi build pack world. Need to inject some custom ingress/egress rules. 

-- 
--cade

Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Norm Abramovitz
 

If you take the conservative approach it would be a breaking change. 

We have a tool that validates the CF environment after deployment. In our use case, the service exists with plans x, y, z but plan z is disabled.   As long as we can get enabled and disabled plans in some way. that would be good enough.




On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 3:25 AM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476



--
Norman Abramovitz
Technical Director
Stark & Wayne, LLC



Re: What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Hey, friends!

Following up on this one more time before we make a decision (currently favouring that this is not a breaking change). We’ll make a decision how to move forward with this issue this Thursday 25 Mar at 5pm ET.

If you have any concerns, please tell us!

Best regards,
Oleksii
on behalf of SAPI team


On Fri, Mar 15, 2019 at 12:04 PM Oleksii Fedorov <ofedorov@...> wrote:
Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team



--
Oleksii Fedorov
Senior Software Engineer
Pivotal Labs, Berlin
DE: +49 15757 486 476

Re: Request for Feedback: "Scaling Cloud Controller" guidance document

Dieu Cao <dcao@...>
 

Woohoo! I can't begin to convey how excited I am about this as a former CAPI PM.

-Dieu

On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 10:44 AM Tim Downey <tdowney@...> wrote:
Hello,

The CAPI team has been working on a document to give operators some guidance with regards to knowing when and how to scale their Cloud Controllers (and related jobs in capi-release) based on our team's experience. 

A draft version of the "Scaling Cloud Controller" document can be viewed here:

Our intent is to work with the Docs team and get this added as part of the Running Cloud Foundry operator docs, but first we'd welcome and appreciate any feedback from the CF operator community. Feel free to respond to this post or submit an issue/PR with suggestions for the draft document.

Thanks!
CF CAPI Team

Request for Feedback: "Scaling Cloud Controller" guidance document

Tim Downey
 

Hello,

The CAPI team has been working on a document to give operators some guidance with regards to knowing when and how to scale their Cloud Controllers (and related jobs in capi-release) based on our team's experience. 

A draft version of the "Scaling Cloud Controller" document can be viewed here:

Our intent is to work with the Docs team and get this added as part of the Running Cloud Foundry operator docs, but first we'd welcome and appreciate any feedback from the CF operator community. Feel free to respond to this post or submit an issue/PR with suggestions for the draft document.

Thanks!
CF CAPI Team

istio-release 1.2.0

Wa Gao
 

Hello, 

We have cut istio-release 1.2.0. With this release in addition to weighted routing, we now support envoys sidecars configured by Istio Pilot for app to app communication. We also have support for client-side load balancing, retries and timeouts for app to app communication. We are working on the docs to run the book-info app on CF and will keep you posted. 

The release highlights include the following features. 

  • app developers can rely on the platform to provide timeouts for app to app communication, timeout default is currently set to 15s and not modifiable details
  • istio-release versioning now uses semver versions and not the whole number versions details
  • performance improvement to allow operators to run many apps by temporarily disabling stats logging (reduces envoy RAM consumption) details
  • we have now added a Contributing section to istio-release details
  • fix issue with retries such that application developers can rely on the platform to provide retries for app to app communication details
  • performance and security: only internal routes are published to sidecar envoys and external routes to the envoy gateway details
  • Copilot uses new MCP details
  • Changed pilot to use role~ip~id~dns.domain for the Envoy service node field details
  • operator can set spec property for pilot_log_level details
  • Bump istio to 1.1 in istio-release details
  • developer can see traffic equally distributed when they map an internal route to three apps on the same port details
  • operators can specify the DNS address of the MCP Client Pilot connects to details

 CF-Networking 

Re: [cf-bosh] Removing Support for v1 Style Manifests

Corey Innis <cinnis@...>
 

+100 ... big proponent of making v1 manifests obsolete.

Cheers,
Corey

On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 6:29 PM Ronak Banka <ronakbanka.cse@...> wrote:
Great job BOSH team 👏🏻

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:36 AM, Morgan Fine <mfine@...> wrote:
Friends of BOSH & CF,

In the olden days of BOSH, all IaaS configuration was done in individual deployment manifests, a la "v1 manifests". This became tedious and difficult for operators to mange. 

In order to abstract IaaS configuration, and simplify the operator workflow, BOSH added support for "v2 manifests". This introduced a concept called Cloud Config in order to consolidate IaaS configuration in a single file. The new "v2 manifests" reference IaaS concepts/objects from the Cloud Config and were more reusable across infrastructures.

Support for "v2 manifests" was added over 2 years ago. We believe this has given ample time for operators and release authors to migrate and stop relying on v1 syntax. Thus, the time has come where the BOSH team would like to simplify the code base and formally remove support for "v1 manifests". 

If you have any feedback about this change, please let us know.

For reference:
v1 manifest documentation: https://bosh.io/docs/deployment-manifest/
v2 manifest documentation: https://bosh.io/docs/manifest-v2/

Best,
Morgan Fine
CF BOSH

Re: [cf-bosh] Removing Support for v1 Style Manifests

Ronak Banka
 

Great job BOSH team 👏🏻

On Tue, 19 Mar 2019 at 12:36 AM, Morgan Fine <mfine@...> wrote:
Friends of BOSH & CF,

In the olden days of BOSH, all IaaS configuration was done in individual deployment manifests, a la "v1 manifests". This became tedious and difficult for operators to mange. 

In order to abstract IaaS configuration, and simplify the operator workflow, BOSH added support for "v2 manifests". This introduced a concept called Cloud Config in order to consolidate IaaS configuration in a single file. The new "v2 manifests" reference IaaS concepts/objects from the Cloud Config and were more reusable across infrastructures.

Support for "v2 manifests" was added over 2 years ago. We believe this has given ample time for operators and release authors to migrate and stop relying on v1 syntax. Thus, the time has come where the BOSH team would like to simplify the code base and formally remove support for "v1 manifests". 

If you have any feedback about this change, please let us know.

For reference:
v1 manifest documentation: https://bosh.io/docs/deployment-manifest/
v2 manifest documentation: https://bosh.io/docs/manifest-v2/

Best,
Morgan Fine
CF BOSH

FINAL REMINDER: CAB call for March is next week Wednesday 20th @ 8a Pacific

Michael Maximilien
 

Hi, all,
 
Quick final reminder that the CAB call for March is this coming Wednesday 20th @ 8a Pacific.
 
We will have regular highlights, QAs, as well as two exciting talks:
 
1. YTT: The YAML Templating Tool that simplifies complex configuration management [1] by Dmitriy Kalinin (Pivotal) and Nima Kaviani (IBM)
2. CF Weighted Routing with Istio and Future Road Map [2] by Shubha Anjur Tupil and team from Pivotal
 
All other info in agenda [0]. Zoom soon. Best,

------
dr.max
ibm ☁ 
silicon valley, ca
maximilien.org
 
 

----- Original message -----
From: Michael Maximilien/Almaden/IBM
To: cf-dev@...
Cc:
Subject: CAB call for March is next week Wednesday 20th @ 8a Pacific
Date: Thu, Mar 14, 2019 8:39 AM
 

Hi, all,

 

Reminder that the CAB call for February is Wednesday March 20th @ 8a PST (next week).

 

We will have our regular PMCs highlights and hopefully two talks / demos:

 

1. “YTT: The YAML Templating Tool that simplifies complex configuration management” [1] by Dmitriy Kalinin (Pivotal) and Nima Kaviani (IBM)

 

2. TBD - please email or slack me if you have something to demo

 

All other info in agenda here [0].

 

Zoom soon. Best,

 

dr.max

ibm ☁ 

silicon valley, ca

 

[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SCOlAquyUmNM-AQnekCOXiwhLs6gveTxAcduvDcW_xI

[1] https://developer.ibm.com/blogs/yaml-templating-tool-to-simplify-complex-configuration-management/

 
 

Removing Support for v1 Style Manifests

Morgan Fine
 

Friends of BOSH & CF,

In the olden days of BOSH, all IaaS configuration was done in individual deployment manifests, a la "v1 manifests". This became tedious and difficult for operators to mange. 

In order to abstract IaaS configuration, and simplify the operator workflow, BOSH added support for "v2 manifests". This introduced a concept called Cloud Config in order to consolidate IaaS configuration in a single file. The new "v2 manifests" reference IaaS concepts/objects from the Cloud Config and were more reusable across infrastructures.

Support for "v2 manifests" was added over 2 years ago. We believe this has given ample time for operators and release authors to migrate and stop relying on v1 syntax. Thus, the time has come where the BOSH team would like to simplify the code base and formally remove support for "v1 manifests". 

If you have any feedback about this change, please let us know.

For reference:
v1 manifest documentation: https://bosh.io/docs/deployment-manifest/
v2 manifest documentation: https://bosh.io/docs/manifest-v2/

Best,
Morgan Fine
CF BOSH

What do admins expect to see in "cf marketplace?"

Oleksii Fedorov
 

Hello, folks!

We’re considering fixing the bug reported here https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cli/issues/967

We understand that this is just one side of the coin: some admins confused about output of cf marketplace including all the plans (even disabled ones).

The question is if we fix it and admins will see only plans that are “usable” in the current space, will you be confused by that new behaviour? Will it break any of your scripts?

We’re thinking it’s just a bug fix, but maybe it’s a breaking change. And we’re it actually makes sense to do it at all. What do you think?

Best regards, 
Oleksii, Niki, and Alex
on behalf of SAPI team

Re: [Proposal] Deprecation of the firehose endpoint

Johannes Tuchscherer
 

Hello everybody,

after a lot of deliberation and many good conversations, we came to the conclusion that we will go ahead and remove the firehose endpoint in six months. So, in the first release published after September 14th, there will be no more firehose endpoint. Until then, we will continue to help the community to migrate commonly used firehose integrations over to using the new endpoints located on the Reverse Log Proxy.

Just to reiterate the benefit of this effort, this is an important step to lower overhead and complexity for cloud foundry operator. Also, it will bring more adoption to the new endpoints which should be easier to consume and put less stress on the logging system.

Thanks again for everybody who reached out to us either on this list or on Slack or a separate email thread. Your input was very valuable.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns,
Johannes 

On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:52 AM Johannes Tuchscherer <jtuchscherer@...> wrote:
Hi Neil,

Thanks for the feedback. We actually created PRs for both, firehose-exporter[0] and to firehose-to-syslog[1]. We will continue working with the maintainers to get these pulled in. 

Best,
Johannes


On Tue, Mar 5, 2019 at 11:26 AM Neil MacDougall <neil.macdougall@...> wrote:
Johannes,

A 6 month deprecation window works for Stratos - that should be fine for us to update.

If you can work with the firehose-exporter project to get that updated and off the firehose within the next 2 or 3 months, that would be super helpful and give us time to integrate and test, assuming its a drop-in replacement for the current firehose based version.

Many thanks,

Neil

On 25 Feb 2019, at 23:51, Johannes Tuchscherer <jtuchscherer@...> wrote:

Hi everybody,

thanks for the continuous stream of feedback. We are definitely going to support the firehose-exporter and firehose-to-syslog projects off the firehose to the RLP. The stories in our backlog are coming up soon. Stanislav, do you think that looking at what we did with the firehose-to-syslog project would help you to migrate the kafka-firehose-nozzle?

Also, based on the feedback I have received so far I am open to increasing the deprecation window to 6 months. Would that be acceptable?

Thanks,
Johannes

On Sun, Feb 24, 2019 at 4:22 PM Stanislav German-Evtushenko <s.germanevtushenko@...> wrote:
Hi Johannes,

We are heavy users of loggregator and we have the same concerns as others in the thread.

We use loggregator for:
- storing all application logs for 6 month (regulations requirement) using kafka-firehose-nozzle
- getting all platform metrics for monitoring purposes using kafka-firehose-nozzle
- getting all applications metrics to provide monitoring dashboard using kafka-firehose-nozzle and cf-metrics-refinery (see https://cloudfoundry.slack.com/messages/C6WFZ5K0F/p1531268612000101)

Another concern is autoscaler (https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/app-autoscaler-release). It is relying on loggregator and I haven't seen any updates on moving out of it yet.

Best regards,
Stanislav