Re: [Rdo-list] Puppet glusterers unite

On 04/08/2014 02:42 PM, John Eckersberg wrote: > Greetings, > > For those of you in the To: line, I believe you are all doing something > with gluster and puppet at the moment. For anyone else on rdo-list that > might be interested, jump in :) > > Primarily I want to get everyone talking to make sure we don't step on > each other's toes. I know James has done some great work with the > puppet-gluster module, and Gilles is currently working to switch off of > the now-deprecated puppet-openstack-storage module and onto > puppet-gluster. Crag, Jiří, and myself are working gluster-related > bugs. So let's keep in touch. > > I'm working to configure libgfapi support on nova compute nodes. In the > old gluster module, there was a gluster::client class that just > installed the required glusterfs-fuse package. This class is used by > astapor in a few places (compute/cinder/glance). However there's no > gluster::client class in the new module, so we'll need to remedy that > somehow. > > There is a class, gluster::mount::base, that ensures the packages are > installed, and that class is used by each instance of gluster::mount. > I'd like to reuse some of this, but I don't think we need all of it on > the compute nodes (really we just need to install glusterfs-api). The > simple way would be to create a new class glusterfs::apiclient that just > installs the package, and include that for the nova compute case. > However I'm concerned with the other places we were previously using > gluster::client. Can we use the new gluster::mount define to replace > all of these instances? Or are we going to need to refactor in those > places as well? I'd like to have some idea where this is all going > before I start ripping it apart. > > Thoughts? > > -John > [Also CC'ing Steve and Jacob who worked a bit with gluster / foreman in recent history] In the context of the HA-all-in-one-controller host group, I believe we just would need to include the gluster::mount::base class so that we are capable of mounting glusterfs volumes. Pacemaker would be responsible for mounting the shared storage, and would do that the way Steve illustrated here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1064050#c4 Not that that helps clarify any of your above questions. :-) --Crag