Re: [Rdo-list] packstack future

Hi Tim, On Sun, Sep 06, 2015 at 07:35:30AM +0000, Tim Bell wrote: Thanks for raising this - I am aware that a number of folks have been thinking about this topic (myself included), but I don't think we've yet reached a definitive consensus re the path forward yet. Here's my view on the subject: 1. Packstack is clearly successful, useful to a lot of folks, and does satisfy a use-case currently not well served via rdo-manager, so IMO we absolutely should maintain it until that is no longer the case. 2. Many people are interested in easier ways to stand up PoC environments via rdo-manager, so we do need to work on ways to make that easier (or even possible at all in the single-node case). 3. It would be really great if we could figure out (2) in such a way as to enable a simple migration path from packstack to whatever the PoC mode of rdo-manager ends up being, for example perhaps we could have an rdo manager interface which is capable of consuming a packstack answer file? Re the thread you reference, it raises a number of interesting questions, particularly the similarities/differences between an all-in-one packstack install and an all-in-one undercloud install; lot like installing an all-in-one packstack environment, both sets of tools take a config file, and create a puppet-configured all-in-one OpenStack. But there's a lot of potential complexity related to providing a flexible/configurable deployment (like packstack) vs an opinionated bootstrap environment (e.g the current instack undercloud environment). There are a few possible approaches: - Do the work to enable a more flexibly configured undercloud, and just have that as the "all in one" solution - Have some sort of transient undercloud (I'm thinking a container) which exists only for the duration of deploying the all-in-one overcloud, on the local (pre-provisioned, e.g not via Ironic) host. Some prototyping of this approach has already happened [1] which I think James Slagle has used to successfully deploy TripleO templates on pre-provisioned nodes. The latter approach is quite interesting, because it potentially maintains a greater degree of symmetry between the minimal PoC install and real production deployments (e.g you'd use the same heat templates etc), it could also potentially provide easier access to features as they are added to overcloud templates (container integration, as an example), vs integrating new features in two places. Overall at this point I think there are still many unanswered questions around enabling the PoC use-case for rdo-manager (and, more generally making TripleO upstream more easily consumable for these kinds of use-cases). I hope/expect we'll have a TripleO session on this at the forthcoming summit, where we refine the various ideas people have been investigating, and define the path forward wrt PoC deployments. Hopefully that is somewhat helpful, and thanks again for re-starting this discussion! :) Steve [1] https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/noop-softwareconfig