On 09/21/2015 09:51 AM, Rich Bowen wrote:
On 09/18/2015 05:04 PM, Perry Myers wrote:
>>> What is the minimum amount of RAM you need for the undercloud node?
>>>
>>> If 4GB per VM, then a) maybe can be done on a 16GB system, while b)
>>> needs 32GB
>>
>> If we allow for "not very useful" as a stated caveat of the
all-in-one,
>> then we could probably get away with
>
> I think we need to more clearly define what "not very useful" means.
>
>> From my limited PoV, useful would be the ability to run 1 or two
> Instances just to try out the system end to end. Those Instances could
> be very very slimmed down Fedora images or even Cirros images.
>
Yes, that would be my definition of "minimal required usefulness" -
run a couple of instances, and be able to connect to them from
"outside". Not running any actual workloads.
Related, it would be awesome to have, some day, a Trystack-ish service
for experimenting with RDO-Manager. (I know this has been mentioned
before.)
One way that I routinely use packstack is on top of an existing
OpenStack instance.
I think it would be a very powerful tool if we could run the overcloud
install on top of an existing OpenStack instance. We should use the
existing openstack deployment as the undercloud, to minimize degrees of
nesting of virt.
> However, for someone else useful might mean a whole other host of
> things. So we should be careful to identify specific personas here, and
> map a specific install footprint to that particular persona's view of
> useful
>
>> 3GB and swap for both overcloud VMs and 4GB for the undercloud.
>>
>> It's possible to go lower for the undercloud if you have a lot of swap
>> and are patient. It may lead to timeouts/broken-ness, so I wouldn't
>> recommend it.
>
> Ack
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>