server December 2016

server@lists.fedoraproject.org

16 participants
13 discussions

Proposal: Changes to Fedora Server default partitioning scheme
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '24

13 Dec '24

The following proposal comes out of the discussion at this weeks Server SIG meeting[1] Fedora Server will have: * / (root) will be a minimum of 2 GiB and a maximum of 15 GiB * SWAP will continue to be calculated automatically based on available RAM on the system * All unused space will be assigned to a volume group and available to be assigned to new partitions or extend existing partitions. * Anaconda will continue to handle the appropriate EFI and /boot settings We also discussed during the meeting whether we should have a separate /var partition by default, but the general sense was that we might be better served by developing a mechanism to allow partitions to be split from existing mount points, which would be more flexible going forward. As we did not have quorum in the meeting by the point we got to this proposal, I'm taking it to the list for discussion and votes. For the record, the current behavior of the partitioning scheme is for / to be given up to 50 GiB of space and then any remaining space after that is assigned to a separate /home partition. [1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-03-15/serversig.201…

4 8

next steps for migrating Cloud Base image to Fedora Server?
by Matthew Miller 13 Feb '17

13 Feb '17

I think we had general agreement around what we want to do here: have the Cloud Base Image become instead Fedora Server, but shipped as a cloud image and made available in cloud providers. What are the next steps to actually get there? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

7 15

Anyone want to meet today? (2016-12-20)
by Stephen Gallagher 20 Dec '16

20 Dec '16

I don't have anything for the agenda this week right before most people go off for winter holidays. Does anyone have something that they'd like to discuss this week, or shall we adjourn for 2016 and return at the Jan. 03 meeting?

2 1

Fedora Release Tools Status
by Amanda Carter 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

In addition to the demo this month, see more detailed status for F26 work here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/StatusReport#14DEC2016 You have been invited to the following event. Title: Fedora Release Tools Demo Note: Hangouts on Air has been deprecated. While we look for another solution we'll hold this demo in bluejeans without a live broadcast or publicly available recording. Apologies for the inconvenience. -- Purpose: The purpose of a demo is to show our stakeholders what we completed this iteration, get feedback from them about the changes & set some context and expectation with them about our direction. Demo agenda & previous demos can be viewed here: http://taiga.fedorainfracloud.org/project/acarter-fedora-docker-atomic-tool… Highlights today: Kerberos updates When: Tue Dec 13, 2016 12pm – 1pm Eastern Time Where: https://redhat.bluejeans.com/5889988581/ Who: (Guest list is too large to display)

1 0

First Draft: Domain Controller Role definition
by Stephen Gallagher 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

I've put together some of my initial thoughts[1] on what the FreeIPA-powered domain controller role needs to look like. Comments and clarification requests would be most helpful. [1] https://github.com/libre-server/proposals/blob/master/Domain%20Controller.md Full text of the first draft copied here: # Proposal: Domain Controller Role ## Personas * [Sandra Summers - SysAdmin MacGuyver](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas#Persona_.231:_Sys… * [Andy Grant - Junior Enterprise SysAsmin](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Server/Personas#Persona_.234:_Juni… ## User Stories ### Green-field setup Sandra Summers works for a small organization using Linux that is just beginning to expand. They have outgrown the use of individually-configured systems and need to start managing configuration centrally. As a cornerstone of this effort, she needs to build a centrally-managed identity and authentication system, which means setting up a domain. She has an extremely tight budget, so the cost of Windows Server licenses may be prohibitive. Sandra needs her identity management system to ensure that users are identified and authenticated appropriately on all systems for which they require access and are denied access to any systems that are not required by their job duties. ### Scaling and fault-tolerance As the organization grows, Sandra hires Andy Grant to help her manage the load. Andy is relatively new to the information technology world. Sandra tasks Andy to deploy a set of replica domain controllers to handle the increase in users and systems as well as to provide redundancy if one or more of the domain controllers become unavailable. ### Integration into an existing environment Sandra and Andy's company gets acquired by a larger company that has an existing Microsoft Windows domain serving its users. In order to ensure that the transation goes smoothly, Sandra wants to merge their old environment into the new one by having it treated as a new domain in their new company's existing domain forest. This integration must enable users from the new parent company to interact with all of the existing systems in their network. ## Milestones ### Proof-of-concept (no public deliverable) * The administrative user must be able to install FreeIPA as the sole domain in a new forest * The administrative user must be able to perform the installation using a graphical tool as part of the Cockpit admin console. * The administrative user must be provided with an Ansible playbook allowing them to reproduce (or modify) the behavior that the GUI console would perform. * The administrative user must be able to execute the Ansible playbook independent of Cockpit. ### Minimum Viable Project (Fedora 27, late 2017) * In addition to the PoC capabilities, the administrative user must be able to install replica FreeIPA servers for an existing FreeIPA domain. ### Enterprise Target (Fedora 28, early/mid 2018) * The administrative user must be able to install FreeIPA as a subordinate domain of an existing Active Directory forest. * The administrative user must be able to install FreeIPA replicas into a mixed FreeIPA/Active Directory forest. ### Long-term Goals * The administrative user should be able to deploy a new subordinate FreeIPA domain into an existing FreeIPA forest. * The administrative user should be able to deploy a new subordinate FreeIPA domain into an existing mixed FreeIPA/Active Directory forest. * The administrative user should be able to join an existing FreeIPA forest into an existing Active Directory domain forest. ## Technical Requirements (Note: some of these may already exist) ### FreeIPA * An idempotent installer that can be driven by Ansible * Capability to enroll a machine as a replica of an existing domain. * This enrollment may not require preparation steps performed on a separate machine. * This enrollment must be possible to initiate solely from the machine requesting the enrollment. * Capability to enroll a machine as a domain in an existing Active Directory Forest. * As far as possible, this should be possible to initiate solely from the machine requesting enrollment. This may require developing PowerShell capabilities to configure the Windows machine. * Long-term: FreeIPA must support trusted FreeIPA domains ### Cockpit * Cockpit must provide a graphical user experience for executing all of the workflows described in this document. * Cockpit must be able to export an Ansible playbook at the end of the workflow, prior to executing the changes. * Cockpit must be able to import an Ansible playbook for domain creation and execute it. (Expert mode for custom changes made to the Ansible playbook).

1 0

official optical media support for Server images in the future
by Kamil Páral 15 Dec '16

15 Dec '16

Hi, I want to bring your attention to the following thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org… It's discussing official support (meaning rigorous QA verification) of optical media support for our images in the future. I'm missing responses from people well familiar with our Server user base and their use cases, or from people in good position to affect where Server aims and what it wants (Server SIG). I'll appreciate very much if you can read through the thread and respond from Server POV. Please direct the responses to the devel list, not here, so that we have a single place of discussion. (I'm also posting here unsubscribed from hyperkitty, so I'm not even sure I'd receive a reply). Thanks a lot, Kamil Páral Fedora QA

1 0

Server SIG Weekly Meeting Minutes (2016-12-13)
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 =================================================================== #fedora-meeting-1: Server Working Group Weekly Meeting (2016-12-13) =================================================================== Meeting started by sgallagh at 21:01:40 UTC. The full logs are available at https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2016-12-13/server_workin… . Meeting summary - --------------- * roll call (sgallagh, 21:01:40) * agenda (sgallagh, 21:16:18) * Agenda Item: Check-in on the NFS Server Role (sgallagh, 21:16:24) * Agenda Item: Status report and discussion of modularity plans for F26 (sgallagh, 21:16:24) * Agenda Item: Bikeshed on modular server name (sgallagh, 21:16:24) * Status report and discussion of modularity plans for F26 (sgallagh, 21:16:53) * Check-in on the NFS Server Role (sgallagh, 21:31:57) * AGREED: The NFS Server Role, version 1 will be built around the expectation that a FreeIPA server exists in the environment and that the NFS server host must be enrolled in it. (sgallagh, 22:04:58) * Open Floor (sgallagh, 22:07:37) Meeting ended at 22:12:23 UTC. Action Items - ------------ Action Items, by person - ----------------------- * **UNASSIGNED** * (none) People Present (lines said) - --------------------------- * sgallagh (97) * dperpeet (26) * smooge (23) * adamw (14) * linuxmodder (11) * nirik (7) * zodbot (7) * geppetto (5) * mhayden (2) * jds2001 (0) * vvaldez (0) * mjwolf (0) Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4 .. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Mailvelope v1.6.2 Comment: https://www.mailvelope.com wkYEAREIABAFAlhQcq4JEHolVWI2uqOjAABeNgCgrXmrAHPFsxEg1W9GZZQs hCrEo2UAoI7rin5dw1MZg3g2S+pxVJazbsjO =/g0j -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Bikeshed: Codename for the modular Server efforts
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

So, up to this point, Langdon White and his merry band of Modularity folks have been calling the proposed modular Fedora Server by the name of "Crazy Server", which I am not fond of. This is for a number of reasons, but mostly because I can't imagine anyone willingly installing and trying something its creators are calling "crazy". So, I think we need a better name for this effort. My personal suggestion would be to call it "Adaptive Server". Other suggestions welcome.

10 20

Agenda for Server SIG Meeting (2016-12-13)
by Stephen Gallagher 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

I have three items for the agenda this week 1) Check-in on the NFS Server Role 2) Status report and discussion of modularity plans for F26 3) Bikeshed on modular server name (if we have time) Any other pressing topics?

1 0

Fedora Modular Server and the F27 schedule
by Matthew Miller 13 Dec '16

13 Dec '16

This is a targetted offshoot of the thread-fire I started on the devel list. :) I know that the plan for F26 is to offer both a as-we-do-it-now Fedora Server and an experimental generated-with-modularity version — and that the with-modularity version will have some serious caveats, like "no updates". I know that the goal is to have updates working by F27. Is the plan to have the modular version be the main offering for Fedora 27? Fedora 26 is currently scheduled for early June. From the crystal ball at this point, I don't see any reason we'd slip, but just to be on the safe side, let's go ahead and assume a late June final release. If we keep to the current policy and schedule F27 to land in late October or early November, that means a four month cycle — and at least the last month (and probably two) of that cycle should be stabilization, not development. (This is basically comparable to the F25 schedule we just went through, for comparison.) So, basically: is that sufficient time for the F27 Server plans? -- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader

2 1

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

server December 2016