[Rdo-list] Puppet glusterers unite

[Crag Wolfe]

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