Update patch set 2
Patch Set 2:
(7 comments)
Patch-set: 2
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 6926 \u003c6926@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"ADD","reason":"Brent Eagles replied on the change"}
Attention: {"person_ident":"Gerrit User 6681 \u003c6681@4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543\u003e","operation":"REMOVE","reason":"Brent Eagles replied on the change"}
This commit is contained in:
Gerrit User 6681
Gerrit Code Review
parent
fbc27ce6f5
commit
419af40b11
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"comments": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "311133fe_b92f4e86",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 73,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Should we discuss the \"why not\u0027s\" of the alternatives?",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "10436d2f_6c96a0b8",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 75,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "We could do this, but where it does feel like a bit like the status quo is because it was the most expeditious way of getting something working and now that we\u0027ve thought it out and things it makes sense to consolidate and improve the organization of deployed services some.",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "e24e98a8_00cd49cc",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 76,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Switching to nginx is a big change, requiring new puppet, etc etc. but also I suspect components don\u0027t test with nginx in their CI. uWSGI could be interesting, but requires additions to existing puppet modules, changes to existing container builds and introduces a new mechanism for web service integration. In other words, higher stability/quality risk, more work, yada yada.",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "c3a398f3_155bcb04",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 81,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Interesting in its different aspects and probably the most efficient in terms of resource consumption. Pooling configuration can be a little complex, one compromised configuration can affect all services, etc.. IIUC, the apache container would still be relatively \"pure\" and not the API packages and all of their dependencies in the container image?",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "68728f66_b681de2c",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 86,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "This is true. It would be interesting to consider the trade off - one point of vulnerability affecting multiple servers vs. the risk of making sure that *many* configurations, container builds etc. are appropriately configured for security.",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "f709cfff_16d799f2",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 105,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "What would the actual resource count reduction look like for a default controller role with \"a bunch\" of stuff turned on? I think that would be a cool data point.",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"unresolved": true,
|
||||
"key": {
|
||||
"uuid": "b7f2779d_efa2b36d",
|
||||
"filename": "specs/yoga/compact-wsgi-footprint.rst",
|
||||
"patchSetId": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
"lineNbr": 116,
|
||||
"author": {
|
||||
"id": 6681
|
||||
},
|
||||
"writtenOn": "2021-11-18T15:24:33Z",
|
||||
"side": 1,
|
||||
"message": "Something that comes to mind - and I suspect it is a non-issue are python applications that use non-native libraries (e.g. mysql, etc) and would they be impacted in anyway. Does the scheme at any point combine any form of process contexts for those third party libs where they might be multiple apps sharing memory, locks or other resources where they previously didn\u0027t. I can\u0027t see how honestly because IIUC, the various services are still running as separate containers but I thought I\u0027d bring it up in case I\u0027m mistaken.",
|
||||
"revId": "587b36b7c7f3423e98fcb95eb32b8f71b36fe066",
|
||||
"serverId": "4a232e18-c5a9-48ee-94c0-e04e7cca6543"
|
||||
}
|
||||
]
|
||||
}
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue