[Rdo-list] RDO-Manager "quickstart"

[Tom Buskey]

I've been using packstack to build an allinone controller and then add
compute nodes.  I do some modification of cinder backend/size, nova
networking, openvswitch, neutron, vlans and interface NICs.  I modify
settings after packstack so I exclude previously configured nodes from
being modified when I add a new compute node.

We develop an application that uses the openstack APIs and it is very
useful to be stand up an allinone and a compute node the same way every
time.  It's more important for us to have multiple clouds than multiple
nodes.  Having 2 nodes means we can do some internode work that won't be on
an allinone.

We can also use this setup for a customer POC to see our software run w/o
spending lots on a real cloud.  Some will only purchase on physical system
so it's important that we don't require a 2nd system just to standup the
cloud.  Running off a DVD with no internet access in a customer lab means
they see our software run.

I am interested in KVM on KVM.  It would let me have more cloud controllers
:-)

I've been able to stand up a slow allinone in virtualbox or vmware with 1
GB RAM, 1 CPU and 20 GB.  I haven't been able to get a compute node to go
with it.  Probably because connecting the compute NICs on layer 2 isn't
done quite right in the hypervisor.



On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Adam Young <ayoung at redhat.com> wrote:

> 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 at redhat.com
>>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Rdo-list mailing list
> Rdo-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>
> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rdoproject.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20150923/23dc9b26/attachment.html>