Mmm. So is MicroCloud essentially a glue between LXD + Ceph?
It's not really clear what the problem MicroCloud is trying to solve, though. Considering that LXD already supports multi-node clustering, why does anyone want another cluster manager on top of LXD?
I tried very hard to get onboard with Ubuntu's new server paradigm, I've been using Ubuntu on and off since 2005. Snap is what turned me away. My research (admittedly several years out of date) told me that it was impossible to disable 'auto-updating' of Snaps. Now I see that they're rolling out what is apparently a high availability service built on services deployed through Snap. I don't see how this is viable, if Snap is still dead set on updating things on their own schedule. I certainly wouldn't trust it without some in-depth testing and validation to ensure that Canonical can't remotely DoS me by pushing some new update that I can't opt out of.
I work with an enterprisey on-prem product, which we of-course tried to replace with a cloud offer. And in all fairness, it's generally gone well - but because we manage the platform, it sits in the cloud we chose. And that's never going to be the right choice for everyone.
So we have some customers who are concerned about national boundaries. We have some customers who offer their own clouds, and aren't hugely enthusiastic about using the competition's. And then the whole mess with the govt having isolated regions within otherwise-public cloud offers.
Between these, it quickly became apparent that replacing our traditional offer with *aaS would leave a lot of money on the table. It's a minority of customers, but it turns out to be a very valuable minority.
Within that context at least, "private clouds" start to feel like they have legs - bringing most of the benefits of the cloud, to places that 'public' can't reach.
I have the strong impression that most people confound cloud to be public only. Private clouds are fine and deliver a lot of the flexibility at a big % discount of a public cloud.
The big gain from clouds is the flexible infrastructure, especially in the microservices world we are now. In the past, one needed to procure, provision, etc a new server to run a service (times X per environment). With a cloud, regardless if it's public or private, provisioning a VM (or container) to run a new service is a few clicks away.
> So.. we’re back to self-hosting your own services?
It never stopped: plenty of places have on-site VMware and Hyper-V, both of which provide (IIRC) APIs to automated VM creation. If you're more open source, there's OpenStack (which VMware has a API-compat layer for).
Potentially great move for Ubuntu if the economic conditions push companies to invest to reduce their IT opex & get off the public clouds (and also if Gartner tell them to do so...).
Now I know Ubuntu just launched the product but damn they suck at selling it. The landing page doesn't even give you examples of applications you can run on it.
Also I'm sorry but you need to have the word "docker" a few times on that page if you want to catch any flies.
Your CTO/CIO will also want to see some kind of fake enterprise app store to consider it.
I recently tried Mikrok8s from Canonical and at idle (as in not running any of my containers) it ranges from 5% to 15%. I hope this product doesn't suffer the same wastage.
There are issues with the grvfs client that gets into a race condition with the disc volumes. It will saturate the max_connections and eat resources at idle. Not sure if this is your issue, I have yet to find a real solution other than uninstalling grvfs-backends and bumping the max user and connections. I got this workaround added to the charmed kubeflow QuickStart. It’s not the correct solution though and I’m pretty spent on the issue.
But actually less features than OpenStack. Kind of weird that they didn't just package OpenStack. A vendor to manage it for you would actually provide business value
It means all derivative works of microcloud must also be licensed AGPL (if someone else "links" other software into it, makes modifications and re-distributes, they must provide those modifications, etc).
Any company can sell microcloud, but it must remain AGPL.
This license choice is a defense against microcloud being assimilated into proprietary products.
(Now I'll guess at the motivation of your original question. Lemme know if I missed your point...) The AGPL doesn't apply to any containers or VMs running in a microcloud any more than Ubuntu's licensing applies to programs you run on Ubuntu.
[+] [-] lproven|2 years ago|reply
https://www.theregister.com/2023/11/16/canonical_microcloud/
[+] [-] cloudbonsai|2 years ago|reply
It's not really clear what the problem MicroCloud is trying to solve, though. Considering that LXD already supports multi-node clustering, why does anyone want another cluster manager on top of LXD?
[+] [-] linuxftw|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kunwon1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rlpb|2 years ago|reply
See "Pause or stop automatic updates" at https://snapcraft.io/docs/managing-updates
[+] [-] _zoltan_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sen|2 years ago|reply
And IT does another cycle.
[+] [-] soneil|2 years ago|reply
I work with an enterprisey on-prem product, which we of-course tried to replace with a cloud offer. And in all fairness, it's generally gone well - but because we manage the platform, it sits in the cloud we chose. And that's never going to be the right choice for everyone.
So we have some customers who are concerned about national boundaries. We have some customers who offer their own clouds, and aren't hugely enthusiastic about using the competition's. And then the whole mess with the govt having isolated regions within otherwise-public cloud offers.
Between these, it quickly became apparent that replacing our traditional offer with *aaS would leave a lot of money on the table. It's a minority of customers, but it turns out to be a very valuable minority.
Within that context at least, "private clouds" start to feel like they have legs - bringing most of the benefits of the cloud, to places that 'public' can't reach.
[+] [-] AugustoCAS|2 years ago|reply
The big gain from clouds is the flexible infrastructure, especially in the microservices world we are now. In the past, one needed to procure, provision, etc a new server to run a service (times X per environment). With a cloud, regardless if it's public or private, provisioning a VM (or container) to run a new service is a few clicks away.
[+] [-] baz00|2 years ago|reply
Been through the fad cycle three times now and worked out where to make money :)
[+] [-] withinboredom|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dividedbyzero|2 years ago|reply
People keep saying that as if it was a bad thing
[+] [-] throw0101a|2 years ago|reply
It never stopped: plenty of places have on-site VMware and Hyper-V, both of which provide (IIRC) APIs to automated VM creation. If you're more open source, there's OpenStack (which VMware has a API-compat layer for).
[+] [-] hospitalJail|2 years ago|reply
Medical, we do everything in-house to make life easier.
Low value servers, in-house.
High uptime + scalable? You are not doing that in-house.
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rozenmd|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Havoc|2 years ago|reply
> Ubuntu Pro
> driving […] subscription
Think I’ll stick LXC on proxmox
[+] [-] doublerabbit|2 years ago|reply
FreeBSD and jailed bHyve cells for me.
[+] [-] NorwegianDude|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tmikaeld|2 years ago|reply
The only thing I miss is the kind of automatic deployment and network layers that Kubernetes has.
[+] [-] sl-1|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Throwfi44|2 years ago|reply
If I have some idea, I just throw it into farm and see results a few days later. It is slower than renting in cloud, bit about 4x cheaper.
It also heats my house a bit in winter...
[+] [-] Roark66|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sunshine-o|2 years ago|reply
Now I know Ubuntu just launched the product but damn they suck at selling it. The landing page doesn't even give you examples of applications you can run on it.
Also I'm sorry but you need to have the word "docker" a few times on that page if you want to catch any flies. Your CTO/CIO will also want to see some kind of fake enterprise app store to consider it.
[+] [-] grumpyprole|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lloydatkinson|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AugustoCAS|2 years ago|reply
I swapped to k3s and the usage was half of what microk8s used.
[+] [-] millerhooks|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DiabloD3|2 years ago|reply
Supermicro has been selling Microclouds for years, and is a well known product line in the industry.
[+] [-] tw04|2 years ago|reply
Canonical is selling a piece of software, supermicro a line of servers.
And based on their own site it isn’t trademarked. Notice there’s no r next to the microcloud server but there is next to microblade.
https://www.supermicro.com/en/products/blade
[+] [-] Eumenes|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 0xbadcafebee|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Scubabear68|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oopsthrowpass|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meonkeys|2 years ago|reply
Any company can sell microcloud, but it must remain AGPL.
This license choice is a defense against microcloud being assimilated into proprietary products.
(Now I'll guess at the motivation of your original question. Lemme know if I missed your point...) The AGPL doesn't apply to any containers or VMs running in a microcloud any more than Ubuntu's licensing applies to programs you run on Ubuntu.