[rdo-list] Multiple tools for deploying and testing TripleO
Pedro Sousa
pgsousa at gmail.com
Mon Aug 1 23:59:22 UTC 2016
I was pretty sure I that was using cbs pre-built images and they had
delorean repos but I'll check again tomorrow.
Also, is epel still needed? Because in undercloud I'm not using it.
Thanks
On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM, Graeme Gillies <ggillies at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 02/08/16 09:40, Pedro Sousa wrote:
> > HI Graeme,
> >
> > I'm more interested in following RHEL OSP approach, so I install both
> > Director or TripleO depending on my customers, but I'll take a close
> > look on Kolla.
>
> Sure thing. To be clear here, we are very interested in containers and
> looking at how they can currently fit into TripleO/Director. Containers
> are an amazing technology, but come with a lots of pros and cons for
> Operators, so we want to make sure we are considering them in a fashion
> that makes the most sense. Kolla is a great way to use them now if you
> are just purely interested in looking at a container based deployment.
>
> >
> > I have a question (I know it's out of scope) but if you can answer me, I
> > appreciate it. For overcloud nodes images do we still need delorean
> > repos? Or can we just install a clean Centos image with SIG
> > repositories? I want the images to be as stable as possible.
>
> For my stable RDO deployments I make sure not to use any delorean repos,
> and I would expect that would be the same for most people.
>
> You have two ways of doing this. Either using the pre-built stable rdo
> images at
>
>
> http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/cloud/x86_64/tripleo_images/mitaka/cbs/
>
> Which is preferred as they are what have been tested and validated by us.
>
> If you wish to build your own overcloud images using stable pacakges
> only, you need to do the following
>
> Manually patch the undercloud to build overcloud images using
> rhos-release rpm only (which utilises the stable Mitaka repo from
> CentOS, and nothing from RDO Trunk [delorean]). I do this by modifying
> the file
>
> /usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/tripleoclient/v1/overcloud_image.py
>
> At around line 467 you will see a reference to epel, I add a new line
> after that to include the rdo_release DIB element to the build as well.
> This typically makes the file look something like
>
> http://paste.openstack.org/show/508196/
>
> (note like 468). Then I create a directory to store my images and build
> them specifying the mitaka version of rdo_release. I then upload these
> images
>
> # mkdir ~/images
> # cd ~/images
> # export RDO_RELEASE=mitaka
> # openstack overcloud image build --all
> # openstack overcloud image upload --update-existing
>
> I'm not sure if someone else can shed some light on an easier way to
> build overcloud images with rdo-release and not delorean.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Regards,
>
> Graeme
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Graeme Gillies <ggillies at redhat.com
> > <mailto:ggillies at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> > On 02/08/16 08:01, Pedro Sousa wrote:
> > > My 2 cents here as an operator/integrator, since I've been using
> the
> > > CentOS SIG repositories (mitaka) and following the RHEL Oficial
> > > Documentation, I've managed to install several baremetal tripleo
> based
> > > clouds with success. I've not tried tripleo quickstart,
> > >
> > > I've also tried Fuel in the past and it works pretty well with the
> > > plugin architecture and the network validation among other things,
> but
> > > still I prefer tripleo, it gives me more flexibility to setup the
> > > network the way I want it, and using ironic to provision the
> baremetal
> > > hosts is pretty cool too. Also personally I prefer to use Centos
> than
> > > Ubuntu as O.S base system, I find it more stable.
> > >
> > > Still tripleo lacks the ease of installation that Fuel has, and an
> UI
> > > would be great. Also, I'm not sure that using heat templates is
> the best
> > > approach, specially when someone makes a mistake editing the yaml
> files
> > > and stack returns an error. This could happen when you try to
> update the
> > > overcloud nodes, scaling the compute nodes for example. It's not
> easy to
> > > revert the heat stack when you make a mistake.
> > >
> > > There's a lot of room to improve, specially in terms of complexity
> of
> > > installation and update. Maybe containers (kolla) could be a good
> > > approach in the future?
> >
> > Hi Pedro,
> >
> > As an Operator and long time user of TripleO, I sympathise with you
> that
> > the combination of heat templates and puppet are difficult to learn
> and
> > don't have the mature tooling to help you understand and test how
> > changes to the code will reflect in the real environment.
> >
> > One thing I will point out is that if you do a stack update that
> fails,
> > more often than not it's not the end of the world. If you go on your
> > controller plane and make sure pacemaker and all services are up and
> > running, the state of the stack in heat on the undercloud doesn't
> really
> > matter as much.
> >
> > This way we always try to "fail forward". If we do a bad stack
> update,
> > we make sure the environment is stable again, and then push a new
> stack
> > update with the fixes.
> >
> > Having a staging or test environment you can utilise to perform
> changes
> > on first in order to identify these problems is also beneficial. We
> try
> > and get all our Operators to have a virtual tripleo setup on a
> desktop
> > for them to "develop" changes on, as well as a shared staging
> > environments to do final testing of any proposed change before
> rolling
> > into production.
> >
> > If you are interested in understanding our full development/rollout
> > process I can go into more detail.
> >
> > Also kolla already supports centos/RDO, so you can head over to the
> > kolla project and follow their documentation if you are interested in
> > giving it a go. You are able to use Centos and RDO with containers
> right
> > now, no need to wait for anything in the future.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Graeme
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 9:45 PM, Mohammed Arafa <
> mohammed.arafa at gmail.com <mailto:mohammed.arafa at gmail.com>
> > > <mailto:mohammed.arafa at gmail.com <mailto:mohammed.arafa at gmail.com>>>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I too am an end user and have a similar story. I had tried
> packstack
> > > all in one but when it was time to deploy to actual servers I
> looked
> > > to Ubuntu Maas. It was buggy so after a month or so of several
> > > attempts I went to RDO. And was happy when I had my
> environment up.
> > > But it was not reproducible. I spent months trying. And
> finally I
> > > looked elsewhere and was told fuel.
> > > With fuel I have ha and ceph and live migration with in 2
> hours. And
> > > repeatable too
> > >
> > > And yes. When tripleo quick start showed up. I did not even
> look at
> > > it. Information overload? Too much time spent evaluating and
> too
> > > little building something productive? And now I hear of even
> more.
> > >
> > > In honesty with the rename of RDO to triple o is there any
> need for
> > > an installer?
> > >
> > > /outburst over
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 1, 2016 2:01 PM, "Ignacio Bravo" <ibravo at ltgfederal.com
> <mailto:ibravo at ltgfederal.com>
> > > <mailto:ibravo at ltgfederal.com <mailto:ibravo at ltgfederal.com>>>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > If we are talking about tools, I would also want to add
> > > something with regards to user interface of these tools.
> > This is
> > > based on my own experience:
> > >
> > > I started trying to deploy Openstack with Staypuft and The
> > > Foreman. The UI of The Foreman was intuitive enough for the
> > > discovery and provisioning of the servers. The OpenStack
> > > portion, not so much.
> > >
> > > Forward a couple of releases and we had a TripleO GUI
> > (Tuskar, I
> > > believe) that allowed you to graphically build your
> Openstack
> > > cloud. That was a reasonable good GUI for Openstack.
> > >
> > > Following that, TripleO become a script based installer,
> that
> > > required experience in Heat templates. I know I didn’t
> have it
> > > and had to ask in the mailing list about how to present
> > this or
> > > change that. I got a couple of installs working with this
> > setup.
> > >
> > > In the last session in Austin, my goal was to obtain
> > information
> > > on how others were installing Openstack. I was pointed to
> Fuel
> > > as an alternative. I tried it up, and it just worked. It
> > had the
> > > discovering capability from The Foreman, and the
> configuration
> > > options from TripleO. I understand that is based in
> > Ansible and
> > > because of that, it is not fully CentOS ready for all the
> > nodes
> > > (at least not in version 9 that I tried). In any case, as a
> > > deployer and installer, it is the most well rounded tool
> > that I
> > > found.
> > >
> > > I’d love to see RDO moving into that direction, and having
> an
> > > easy to use, end user ready deployer tool.
> > >
> > > IB
> > >
> > >
> > > __
> > > Ignacio Bravo
> > > LTG Federal, Inc
> > > www.ltgfederal.com <http://www.ltgfederal.com>
> > <http://www.ltgfederal.com>
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Aug 1, 2016, at 1:07 PM, David Moreau Simard
> > >> <dms at redhat.com <mailto:dms at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:dms at redhat.com <mailto:dms at redhat.com>>> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> The vast majority of RDO's CI relies on using upstream
> > >> installation/deployment projects in order to test
> > installation
> > >> of RDO
> > >> packages in different ways and configurations.
> > >>
> > >> Unless I'm mistaken, TripleO Quickstart was originally
> > created
> > >> as a
> > >> mean to "easily" install TripleO in different topologies
> > without
> > >> requiring a massive amount of hardware.
> > >> This project allows us to test TripleO in virtual
> deployments
> > >> on just
> > >> one server instead of, say, 6.
> > >>
> > >> There's also WeIRDO [1] which was left out of your list.
> > >> WeIRDO is super simple and simply aims to run upstream
> gate
> > >> jobs (such
> > >> as puppet-openstack-integration [2][3] and packstack
> [4][5])
> > >> outside
> > >> of the gate.
> > >> It'll install dependencies that are expected to be there
> > (i.e,
> > >> usually
> > >> set up by the openstack-infra gate preparation jobs), set
> up
> > >> the trunk
> > >> repositories we're interested in testing and the rest is
> > >> handled by
> > >> the upstream project testing framework.
> > >>
> > >> The WeIRDO project is /very/ low maintenance and brings an
> > >> exceptional
> > >> amount of coverage and value.
> > >> This coverage is important because RDO provides OpenStack
> > >> packages or
> > >> projects that are not necessarily used by TripleO and the
> > >> reality is
> > >> that not everyone deploying OpenStack on CentOS with RDO
> will
> > >> be using
> > >> TripleO.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, sorry for sidetracking but back to the topic,
> > thanks for
> > >> opening the discussion.
> > >>
> > >> What honestly perplexes me is the situation of CI in RDO
> > and OSP,
> > >> especially around TripleO/Director, is the amount of work
> > that is
> > >> spent downstream.
> > >> And by downstream, here, I mean anything that isn't in
> > TripleO
> > >> proper.
> > >>
> > >> I keep dreaming about how awesome upstream TripleO CI
> > would be
> > >> if all
> > >> that effort was spent directly there instead -- and then
> that
> > >> all work
> > >> could bear fruit and trickle down downstream for free.
> > >> Exactly like how we keep improving the testing coverage in
> > >> puppet-openstack-integration, it's automatically pulled
> > in RDO CI
> > >> through WeIRDO for free.
> > >> We make the upstream better and we benefit from it
> > simultaneously:
> > >> everyone wins.
> > >>
> > >> [1]: https://github.com/rdo-infra/weirdo
> > >> [2]:
> > >>
> > https://github.com/rdo-infra/ansible-role-weirdo-puppet-openstack
> > >> [3]:
> > >>
> >
> https://github.com/openstack/puppet-openstack-integration#description
> > >> [4]:
> > https://github.com/rdo-infra/ansible-role-weirdo-packstack
> > >> [5]:
> > >>
> > https://github.com/openstack/packstack#packstack-integration-tests
> > >>
> > >> David Moreau Simard
> > >> Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO
> > >>
> > >> dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]
> > >>
> > >> David Moreau Simard
> > >> Senior Software Engineer | Openstack RDO
> > >>
> > >> dmsimard = [irc, github, twitter]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Arie Bregman
> > >> <abregman at redhat.com <mailto:abregman at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:abregman at redhat.com <mailto:abregman at redhat.com>>> wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> I would like to start a discussion on the overlap between
> > >>> tools we
> > >>> have for deploying and testing TripleO (RDO & RHOSP) in
> CI.
> > >>>
> > >>> Several months ago, we worked on one common framework for
> > >>> deploying
> > >>> and testing OpenStack (RDO & RHOSP) in CI. I think you
> > can say it
> > >>> didn't work out well, which eventually led each group to
> > focus on
> > >>> developing other existing/new tools.
> > >>>
> > >>> What we have right now for deploying and testing
> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> === Component CI, Gating ===
> > >>> I'll start with the projects we created, I think that's
> only
> > >>> fair :)
> > >>>
> > >>> * Ansible-OVB[1] - Provisioning Tripleo heat stack,
> > using the
> > >>> OVB project.
> > >>>
> > >>> * Ansible-RHOSP[2] - Product installation (RHOSP).
> > Branch per
> > >>> release.
> > >>>
> > >>> * Octario[3] - Testing using RPMs (pep8, unit,
> functional,
> > >>> tempest,
> > >>> csit) + Patching RPMs with submitted code.
> > >>>
> > >>> === Automation, QE ===
> > >>> * InfraRed[4] - provision install and test. Pluggable and
> > >>> modular,
> > >>> allows you to create your own provisioner, installer and
> > tester.
> > >>>
> > >>> As far as I know, the groups is working now on different
> > >>> structure of
> > >>> one main project and three sub projects (provision,
> install
> > >>> and test).
> > >>>
> > >>> === RDO ===
> > >>> I didn't use RDO tools, so I apologize if I got
> > something wrong:
> > >>>
> > >>> * About ~25 micro independent Ansible roles[5]. You can
> > >>> either choose
> > >>> to use one of them or several together. They are used for
> > >>> provisioning, installing and testing Tripleo.
> > >>>
> > >>> * Tripleo-quickstart[6] - uses the micro roles for
> deploying
> > >>> tripleo
> > >>> and test it.
> > >>>
> > >>> As I said, I didn't use the tools, so feel free to add
> more
> > >>> information you think is relevant.
> > >>>
> > >>> === More? ===
> > >>> I hope not. Let us know if are familiar with more tools.
> > >>>
> > >>> Conclusion
> > >>> --------------
> > >>> So as you can see, there are several projects that
> > eventually
> > >>> overlap
> > >>> in many areas. Each group is basically using the same
> tasks
> > >>> (provision
> > >>> resources, build/import overcloud images, run tempest,
> > >>> collect logs,
> > >>> etc.)
> > >>>
> > >>> Personally, I think it's a waste of resources. For each
> task
> > >>> there is
> > >>> at least two people from different groups who work on
> > exactly
> > >>> the same
> > >>> task. The most recent example I can give is OVB. As far
> as I
> > >>> know,
> > >>> both groups are working on implementing it in their set
> of
> > >>> tools right
> > >>> now.
> > >>>
> > >>> On the other hand, you can always claim: "we already
> > tried to
> > >>> work on
> > >>> the same framework, we failed to do it successfully" -
> > right, but
> > >>> maybe with better ground rules we can manage it. We would
> > >>> defiantly
> > >>> benefit a lot from doing that.
> > >>>
> > >>> What's next?
> > >>> ----------------
> > >>> So first of all, I would like to hear from you if you
> think
> > >>> that we
> > >>> can collaborate once again or is it actually better to
> keep
> > >>> it as it
> > >>> is now.
> > >>>
> > >>> If you agree that collaboration here makes sense, maybe
> you
> > >>> have ideas
> > >>> on how we can do it better this time.
> > >>>
> > >>> I think that setting up a meeting to discuss the right
> > >>> architecture
> > >>> for the project(s) and decide on good review/gating
> process,
> > >>> would be
> > >>> a good start.
> > >>>
> > >>> Please let me know what do you think and keep in mind
> that
> > >>> this is not
> > >>> about which tool is better!. As you can see I didn't
> mention
> > >>> the time
> > >>> it takes for each tool to deploy and test, and also not
> > the full
> > >>> feature list it supports.
> > >>> If possible, we should keep it about collaborating and
> not
> > >>> choosing
> > >>> the best tool. Our solution could be the combination of
> two
> > >>> or more
> > >>> tools eventually (tripleo-red, infra-quickstart? :D )
> > >>>
> > >>> "You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I
> hope
> > >>> some day
> > >>> you'll join us and the infra will be as one" :)
> > >>>
> > >>> [1] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-ovb
> > >>> [2] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-rhosp
> > >>> [3] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/octario
> > >>> [4] https://github.com/rhosqeauto/InfraRed
> > >>> [5]
> > >>>
> >
> https://github.com/redhat-openstack?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=ansible-role
> > >>> [6] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-quickstart
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> rdo-list mailing list
> > >>> rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>>
> > >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> > >>>
> > >>> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com <mailto:
> rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>
> > >>> <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> rdo-list mailing list
> > >> rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>>
> > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> > >>
> > >> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com <mailto:
> rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>
> > >> <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rdo-list mailing list
> > > rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>>
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com <mailto:
> rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>
> > > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rdo-list mailing list
> > > rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>
> > <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>>
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com <mailto:
> rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>
> > > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com
> > <mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rdo-list mailing list
> > > rdo-list at redhat.com <mailto:rdo-list at redhat.com>
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com <mailto:
> rdo-list-unsubscribe at redhat.com>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Graeme Gillies
> > Principal Systems Administrator
> > Openstack Infrastructure
> > Red Hat Australia
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Graeme Gillies
> Principal Systems Administrator
> Openstack Infrastructure
> Red Hat Australia
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.rdoproject.org/pipermail/dev/attachments/20160802/37d6d0e9/attachment.html>
More information about the dev
mailing list