8:35 a.m.
________________________________
From: Javier Pena <javier.pena(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 7:44 AM
To: Boris Derzhavets
Cc: rdo-list; alan pevec
Subject: Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas
----- Original Message -----
From: rdo-list-bounces(a)redhat.com <rdo-list-bounces(a)redhat.com>
on behalf of
Javier Pena <javier.pena(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 10:45 AM
To: rdo-list
Cc: alan pevec
Subject: Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas
----- Original Message -----
> > We could take an easier way and assume we only have 3 roles, as in the
> > current refactored code: controller, network, compute. The logic would
> > then be:
> > - By default we install everything, so all in one
> > - If our host is not CONFIG_CONTROLLER_HOST but is part of
> > CONFIG_NETWORK_HOSTS, we apply the network manifest
> > - Same as above if our host is part of CONFIG_COMPUTE_HOSTS
> >
> > Of course, the last two options would assume a first server is installed
> > as
> > controller.
> >
> > This would allow us to reuse the same answer file on all runs (one per
> > host
> > as you proposed), eliminate the ssh code as we are always running
> > locally,
> > and make some assumptions in the python code, like expecting OPM to be
> > deployed and such. A contributed ansible wrapper to automate the runs
> > would be straightforward to create.
> >
> > What do you think? Would it be worth the effort?
>
> +2 I like that proposal a lot! An ansible wrapper is then just an
> example playbook in docs but could be done w/o ansible as well,
> manually or using some other remote execution tooling of user's
> choice.
>
Now that the phase 1 refactor is under review and passing CI, I think it's
time to come to a conclusion on this.
This option looks like the best compromise between keeping it simple and
dropping the least possible amount of features. So unless someone has a
better idea, I'll work on that as soon as the current review is merged.
Would it be possible :-
- By default we install everything, so all in one
- If our host is not CONFIG_CONTROLLER_HOST but is part of
CONFIG_NETWORK_HOSTS, we apply the network manifest
- Same as above if our host is part of CONFIG_COMPUTE_HOSTS
- If our host is not CONFIG_CONTROLLER_HOST but is part of
CONFIG_STORAGE_HOSTS , we apply the storage manifest
Just one more role. May we have 4 roles ?
This is a tricky one. There used to be support for separate CONFIG_STORAGE_HOSTS, but I
think it has been removed (or at least not tested for quite a long time).
However, this feature currently works for RDO Mitaka ( as well it woks for Liberty)
It's even possible to add Storage Node via packstack , taking care of glance and
swift proxy
keystone endpoints manually .
For small prod deployments like several (5-10) Haswell Xeon boxes. ( no HA
requirements from
customer's side ). Ability to split Storage specifically Swift (AIO) instances or
Cinder iSCSILVM
back ends hosting Node from Controller is extremely critical feature.
What I am writing is based on several projects committed in South America's
countries.
No complaints from site support stuff to myself for configurations deployed via
Packstack.
Dropping this feature ( unsupported , but stable working ) will for sure make
Packstack
almost useless toy .
In situation when I am able only play with TripleO QuickStart due to Upstream
docs
( Mitaka trunk instructions set) for instack-virt-setup don't allow to commit
`openstack undercloud install` makes Howto :-
https://remote-lab.net/rdo-manager-ha-openstack-deployment
<https://remote-lab.net/rdo-manager-ha-openstack-deployment> non reproducible. I
have nothing against TripleO turn, but absence of Red Hat
high quality manuals for TripleO bare metal / TripleO Instak-virt-setup
will affect RDO Community in wide spread way. I mean first all countries
like Chile, Brazil, China and etc.
Thank you.
Boris.
This would need to be a follow-up review, if it is finally decided to do so.
Regards,
Javier
Thanks
Boris.
Regards,
Javier
> Alan
>
_______________________________________________
rdo-list mailing list
rdo-list(a)redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
rdo-list Info Page - Red
Hat<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list>
www.redhat.com
The rdo-list mailing list provides a forum for discussions about installing, running, and
using OpenStack on Red Hat based distributions. To see the collection of ...
rdo-list Info Page - Red Hat
www.redhat.com<http://www.redhat.com>
The rdo-list mailing list provides a forum for discussions about installing,
running, and using OpenStack on Red Hat based distributions. To see the
collection of ...
To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe(a)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