Re: [rdo-list] Multiple tools for deploying and testing TripleO

My 2 cents here as an operator/integrator, since I've been using the CentOS SIG repositories (mitaka) and following the RHEL Oficial Documentation, I've managed to install several baremetal tripleo based clouds with success. I've not tried tripleo quickstart, I've also tried Fuel in the past and it works pretty well with the plugin architecture and the network validation among other things, but still I prefer tripleo, it gives me more flexibility to setup the network the way I want it, and using ironic to provision the baremetal hosts is pretty cool too. Also personally I prefer to use Centos than Ubuntu as O.S base system, I find it more stable. Still tripleo lacks the ease of installation that Fuel has, and an UI would be great. Also, I'm not sure that using heat templates is the best approach, specially when someone makes a mistake editing the yaml files and stack returns an error. This could happen when you try to update the overcloud nodes, scaling the compute nodes for example. It's not easy to revert the heat stack when you make a mistake. There's a lot of room to improve, specially in terms of complexity of installation and update. Maybe containers (kolla) could be a good approach in the future?

On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Mohammed Arafa <mohammed.arafa(a)gmail.com <mailto:mohammed.arafa@gmail.com>> wrote: I too am an end user and have a similar story. I had tried packstack all in one but when it was time to deploy to actual servers I looked to Ubuntu Maas. It was buggy so after a month or so of several attempts I went to RDO. And was happy when I had my environment up. But it was not reproducible. I spent months trying. And finally I looked elsewhere and was told fuel. With fuel I have ha and ceph and live migration with in 2 hours. And repeatable too And yes. When tripleo quick start showed up. I did not even look at it. Information overload? Too much time spent evaluating and too little building something productive? And now I hear of even more. In honesty with the rename of RDO to triple o is there any need for an installer? /outburst over On Aug 1, 2016 2:01 PM, "Ignacio Bravo" <ibravo(a)ltgfederal.com <mailto:ibravo@ltgfederal.com>> wrote: If we are talking about tools, I would also want to add something with regards to user interface of these tools. This is based on my own experience: I started trying to deploy Openstack with Staypuft and The Foreman. The UI of The Foreman was intuitive enough for the discovery and provisioning of the servers. The OpenStack portion, not so much. Forward a couple of releases and we had a TripleO GUI (Tuskar, I believe) that allowed you to graphically build your Openstack cloud. That was a reasonable good GUI for Openstack. Following that, TripleO become a script based installer, that required experience in Heat templates. I know I didn’t have it and had to ask in the mailing list about how to present this or change that. I got a couple of installs working with this setup. In the last session in Austin, my goal was to obtain information on how others were installing Openstack. I was pointed to Fuel as an alternative. I tried it up, and it just worked. It had the discovering capability from The Foreman, and the configuration options from TripleO. I understand that is based in Ansible and because of that, it is not fully CentOS ready for all the nodes (at least not in version 9 that I tried). In any case, as a deployer and installer, it is the most well rounded tool that I found. I’d love to see RDO moving into that direction, and having an easy to use, end user ready deployer tool. IB __ Ignacio Bravo LTG Federal, Inc www.ltgfederal.com <http://www.ltgfederal.com> > On Aug 1, 2016, at 1:07 PM, David Moreau Simard > <dms(a)redhat.com <mailto:dms@redhat.com>> wrote: > > The vast majority of RDO's CI relies on using upstream > installation/deployment projects in order to test installation > of RDO > packages in different ways and configurations. > > Unless I'm mistaken, TripleO Quickstart was originally created > as a > mean to "easily" install TripleO in different topologies without > requiring a massive amount of hardware. > This project allows us to test TripleO in virtual deployments > on just > one server instead of, say, 6. > > There's also WeIRDO [1] which was left out of your list. > WeIRDO is super simple and simply aims to run upstream gate > jobs (such > as puppet-openstack-integration [2][3] and packstack [4][5]) > outside > of the gate. > It'll install dependencies that are expected to be there (i.e, > usually > set up by the openstack-infra gate preparation jobs), set up > the trunk > repositories we're interested in testing and the rest is > handled by > the upstream project testing framework. > > The WeIRDO project is /very/ low maintenance and brings an > exceptional > amount of coverage and value. > This coverage is important because RDO provides OpenStack > packages or > projects that are not necessarily used by TripleO and the > reality is > that not everyone deploying OpenStack on CentOS with RDO will > be using > TripleO. > > Anyway, sorry for sidetracking but back to the topic, thanks for > opening the discussion. > > What honestly perplexes me is the situation of CI in RDO and OSP, > especially around TripleO/Director, is the amount of work that is > spent downstream. > And by downstream, here, I mean anything that isn't in TripleO > proper. > > I keep dreaming about how awesome upstream TripleO CI would be > if all > that effort was spent directly there instead -- and then that > all work > could bear fruit and trickle down downstream for free. > Exactly like how we keep improving the testing coverage in > puppet-openstack-integration, it's automatically pulled in RDO CI > through WeIRDO for free. > We make the upstream better and we benefit from it simultaneously: > everyone wins. > > [1]: https://github.com/rdo-infra/weirdo > [2]: > https://github.com/rdo-infra/ansible-role-weirdo-puppet-openstack > [3]: > https://github.com/openstack/puppet-openstack-integration#description > [4]: https://github.com/rdo-infra/ansible-role-weirdo-packstack > [5]: > https://github.com/openstack/packstack#packstack-integration-tests > > David Moreau Simard > Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO > > dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] > > David Moreau Simard > Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO > > dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter] > > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Arie Bregman > <abregman(a)redhat.com <mailto:abregman@redhat.com>> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I would like to start a discussion on the overlap between >> tools we >> have for deploying and testing TripleO (RDO & RHOSP) in CI. >> >> Several months ago, we worked on one common framework for >> deploying >> and testing OpenStack (RDO & RHOSP) in CI. I think you can say it >> didn't work out well, which eventually led each group to focus on >> developing other existing/new tools. >> >> What we have right now for deploying and testing >> -------------------------------------------------------- >> === Component CI, Gating === >> I'll start with the projects we created, I think that's only >> fair :) >> >> * Ansible-OVB[1] - Provisioning Tripleo heat stack, using the >> OVB project. >> >> * Ansible-RHOSP[2] - Product installation (RHOSP). Branch per >> release. >> >> * Octario[3] - Testing using RPMs (pep8, unit, functional, >> tempest, >> csit) + Patching RPMs with submitted code. >> >> === Automation, QE === >> * InfraRed[4] - provision install and test. Pluggable and >> modular, >> allows you to create your own provisioner, installer and tester. >> >> As far as I know, the groups is working now on different >> structure of >> one main project and three sub projects (provision, install >> and test). >> >> === RDO === >> I didn't use RDO tools, so I apologize if I got something wrong: >> >> * About ~25 micro independent Ansible roles[5]. You can >> either choose >> to use one of them or several together. They are used for >> provisioning, installing and testing Tripleo. >> >> * Tripleo-quickstart[6] - uses the micro roles for deploying >> tripleo >> and test it. >> >> As I said, I didn't use the tools, so feel free to add more >> information you think is relevant. >> >> === More? === >> I hope not. Let us know if are familiar with more tools. >> >> Conclusion >> -------------- >> So as you can see, there are several projects that eventually >> overlap >> in many areas. Each group is basically using the same tasks >> (provision >> resources, build/import overcloud images, run tempest, >> collect logs, >> etc.) >> >> Personally, I think it's a waste of resources. For each task >> there is >> at least two people from different groups who work on exactly >> the same >> task. The most recent example I can give is OVB. As far as I >> know, >> both groups are working on implementing it in their set of >> tools right >> now. >> >> On the other hand, you can always claim: "we already tried to >> work on >> the same framework, we failed to do it successfully" - right, but >> maybe with better ground rules we can manage it. We would >> defiantly >> benefit a lot from doing that. >> >> What's next? >> ---------------- >> So first of all, I would like to hear from you if you think >> that we >> can collaborate once again or is it actually better to keep >> it as it >> is now. >> >> If you agree that collaboration here makes sense, maybe you >> have ideas >> on how we can do it better this time. >> >> I think that setting up a meeting to discuss the right >> architecture >> for the project(s) and decide on good review/gating process, >> would be >> a good start. >> >> Please let me know what do you think and keep in mind that >> this is not >> about which tool is better!. As you can see I didn't mention >> the time >> it takes for each tool to deploy and test, and also not the full >> feature list it supports. >> If possible, we should keep it about collaborating and not >> choosing >> the best tool. Our solution could be the combination of two >> or more >> tools eventually (tripleo-red, infra-quickstart? :D ) >> >> "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope >> some day >> you'll join us and the infra will be as one" :) >> >> [1] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-ovb >> [2] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-rhosp >> [3] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/octario >> [4] https://github.com/rhosqeauto/InfraRed >> [5] >> https://github.com/redhat-openstack?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=ansible-role >> [6] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-quickstart >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rdo-list mailing list >> rdo-list(a)redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list@redhat.com> >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list >> >> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe@redhat.com> > > _______________________________________________ > rdo-list mailing list > rdo-list(a)redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list@redhat.com> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list > > To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ rdo-list mailing list rdo-list(a)redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list@redhat.com> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ rdo-list mailing list rdo-list(a)redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list@redhat.com> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ rdo-list mailing list rdo-list(a)redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)redhat.com