Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas

On Thu, Jun 09, 2016 at 12:40:39AM +0200, Hugh Brock wrote: The point of instack has always been to reuse the same tooling that is used for the overcloud to do the undercloud install. Given: - the composability that is coming in tripleo-heat-templates - driving SoftwareDeployment via Heat without a full stack - applying those SoftwareDeployments to servers that don't even have to be known to Heat I actually think we'd move more in the direction of using tripleo-heat-templates in some fashion to install the undercloud. Also given the requirements around undercloud HA, TripleO doesnt want to reinvent the wheel coming up with a new multinode HA installer. Users are likely to want compsability, network isolation, ipv6, etc, for their HA underclouds too. Reusing what we're already doing for the overcloud makes the most sense to me. That would be the next iteration of instack IMO, using Heat and tripleo-heat-templates. As long as those are our tools for the overcloud, I'd want to reuse them for the undercloud as well, especially as the requirements grow to require more complexity. That solution might result in a nice and simple AIO installer as well, but I don't hear a lot of requests for that outside the context of "how can we get rid of packstack". Which doesn't seem like all that valid of a reason tbh given that packstack is already really good at doing AIO. Approaching it from the other angle, what if packstack were really good at multinode HA, and we used that for undercloud HA? That could definitely work, but you don't have any code reuse between the undercloud and overcloud other than the puppet modules. Further, there would be a fair amount of churn in the install experience unless we developed a compatibility layer as well, would we really want to deprecate every undercloud.conf already out there, and require rewriting it as answers file? I think there's a fair amount of complexity and trade-offs to consider in going this route as well. I think the last time we had this discussion, it more or less inspired/moved us along the lines of creating tripleo-quickstart. It's just not clear to me if the current discussion is about making AIO better or making multinode easier via packstack. It might be useful to define who we're actually targetting with this effort, and what the requirements are. IME, the effort to get to a simple and working multinode installer if actually pretty easy. But then you're staring at a huge amount of complexity to move it to the next level of even being usable for POC's. We're spending a lot of time trying to make TripleO easier for POC's as well. I think what we're finding though is that there are no "simple" POC's either, every one is different. You still need a fair amount of customization, which results in complexity, even for POC's. -- -- James Slagle --