search

scylladb / scylla-ami

7 stars 29 forks source link

Allow Scylla AMI to run on a micro instance #10

Closed tzach closed 8 years ago

tzach commented 8 years ago

Although not recommended for production, developers looking for functional evaluation will try to run Scylla on a free t2.micro instance Currently Scylla AMI failed with a non clear error:

Jan 04 09:59:05 ip-172-30-0-66 audit[12432]: <audit-1701> auid=4294967295 uid=995 gid=1001 ses=4294967295 subj=system_u:system_r:unconfined_service_t:s0 pid=12432 comm="scylla" exe="/usr/bin/scylla" sig=6
slivne commented 8 years ago

I don't think we should chase this

We can limit the AMI to specific instance types (including some that are cheap).

If anyone want to use different instances he can always use the rpms

tzach commented 8 years ago

I don't think we should chase this

Making scylla easy and cheap to test is enough of a motivation. It will have a similar audience as Scylla on Docker: early adopters and developers, interested but lazy and does not like to pay (did I just described myself?)

slivne commented 8 years ago

Ok - so we can make a developer mode ami if we want to chase this - trying to catch the "production ready" and the "run with the least resources available" at the same time is not realistic - e.g we should at least set --developer-mode for the "run with the least resources" - as currently we require in addition to XFS ability to hold many file open that will eat up a large part of memory (if I'm not mistaken).

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Tzach Livyatan notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think we should chase this

Making scylla easy and cheap to test is enough of a motivation. It will have a similar audience as Scylla on Docker: early adopters and developers, interested but lazy and does not like to pay (did I just described myself?)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/scylladb/scylla-ami/issues/10#issuecomment-169643785.

dorlaor commented 8 years ago

It's a good idea to run there with --developer-mode. Indeed it's not recommended for production but is very helpful for developers and first time use. Users don't really read the docs so it should be good to run there.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:18 PM, slivne notifications@github.com wrote:

Ok - so we can make a developer mode ami if we want to chase this - trying to catch the "production ready" and the "run with the least resources available" at the same time is not realistic - e.g we should at least set --developer-mode for the "run with the least resources" - as currently we require in addition to XFS ability to hold many file open that will eat up a large part of memory (if I'm not mistaken).

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Tzach Livyatan notifications@github.com wrote:

I don't think we should chase this

Making scylla easy and cheap to test is enough of a motivation. It will have a similar audience as Scylla on Docker: early adopters and developers, interested but lazy and does not like to pay (did I just described myself?)

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub <https://github.com/scylladb/scylla-ami/issues/10#issuecomment-169643785 .

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/scylladb/scylla-ami/issues/10#issuecomment-169645564.

tzach commented 8 years ago

developer-mode is a good idea. Adding a developer-mode warning on the SSH prompt is a nice complementary

slivne commented 8 years ago

I think it should be two different AMIs to make it clear

The prompt on login can be added.

On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Tzach Livyatan notifications@github.com wrote:

developer-mode is a good idea. Adding a developer-mode warning on the SSH prompt is a nice complementary

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/scylladb/scylla-ami/issues/10#issuecomment-169649449.

tzach commented 8 years ago

I think it should be two different AMIs to make it clear

+1

syuu1228 commented 8 years ago

I able to run recent AMI on t2.micro so I don't understand what should we fix.

About to having two different AMIs, maybe we should add an additional argument on dist/ami/build_ami.sh to specify which one do we want to build, use different IAM policies, and specify --developer-mode on developer AMI?

slivne commented 8 years ago

Closing this - till we have a new issue with the micro and then decide what we do with it - if it currently works thats good enough for now

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Takuya ASADA notifications@github.com wrote:

I able to run recent AMI on t2.micro so I don't understand what should we fix.

About to having two different AMIs, maybe we should add an additional argument on dist/ami/build_ami.sh to specify which one do we want to build, use different IAM policies, and specify --developer-mode on developer AMI?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/scylladb/scylla-ami/issues/10#issuecomment-178157745.

slivne commented 8 years ago

Avi fixed this