[rdo-list] Multiple tools for deploying and testing TripleO
Raoul Scarazzini
rasca at redhat.com
Wed Aug 3 11:10:57 UTC 2016
On 02/08/2016 20:52, Wesley Hayutin wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 1:51 PM, Arie Bregman <abregman at redhat.com
> <mailto:abregman at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Wesley Hayutin <whayutin at redhat.com
> <mailto:whayutin at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 4:58 AM, Arie Bregman <abregman at redhat.com
> <mailto:abregman at redhat.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> It became a discussion around the official installer and how to
> >> improve it. While it's an important discussion, no doubt, I actually
> >> want to focus on our automation and CI tools.
> >>
> >> Since I see there is an agreement that collaboration does make sense
> >> here, let's move to the hard questions :)
> >>
> >> Wes, Tal - there is huge difference right now between infrared and
> >> tripleo-quickstart in their structure. One is all-in-one project and
> >> the other one is multiple micro projects managed by one project. Do
> >> you think there is a way to consolidate or move to a different model
> >> which will make sense for both RDO and RHOSP? something that both
> >> groups can work on.
> >
> >
> > I am happy to be part of the discussion, and I am also very
> willing to help
> > and try to drive suggestions to the tripleo-quickstart community.
> > I need to make a point clear though, just to make sure we're on
> the same
> > page.. I do not own oooq, I am not a core on oooq.
> > I can help facilitate a discussion but oooq is an upstream tripleo
> tool that
> > replaces instack-virt-setup [1].
> > It also happens to be a great tool for easily deploying TripleO
> end to end
> > [3]
> >
> > What I *can* do is show everyone how to manipulate
> tripleo-quickstart and
> > customize it with composable ansible roles, templates, settings etc..
> > This would allow any upstream or downstream project to override
> the native
> > oooq roles and *any* step that does not work for another group w/
> 3rd party
> > roles [2].
> > These 3rd party roles can be free and opensource or internal only,
> it works
> > either way.
> > This was discussed in depth as part of the production chain
> meetings, the
> > message may have been lost unfortunately.
> >
> > I hope this resets your expectations of what I can and can not do
> as part of
> > these discussions.
> > Let me know where and when and I'm happy to be part of the discussion.
>
> Thanks for clarifying :)
>
> Next reasonable step would probably be to propose some sort of
> blueprint for tripleo-quickstart to include some of InfraRed features
> and by that have one tool driven by upstream development that can be
> either cloned downstream or used as it is with an internal data
> project.
>
>
> Sure.. a blueprint would help everyone understand the feature and the
> motivation.
> You could also just plug in the feature you are looking for to oooq and
> see if it meets
> your requirements. See below.
>
>
>
> OR
>
> have InfraRed pushed into tripleo/openstack namespace and expose it to
> the RDO community (without internal data of course). Personally, I
> really like the pluggable[1] structure (which allows it to actually
> consume tripleo-quickstart) so I'm not sure if it can be really merged
> with tripleo-quickstart as proposed in the first option.
>
>
> The way oooq is built one can plugin or override any part at run time
> with custom playbooks, roles, and config. There isn't anything that
> needs to be
> checked in directly to oooq to use it.
>
> It's designed such that third parties can make their own decisions to
> use something
> native to quickstart, something from our role library, or something
> completely independent.
> This allows teams, individuals or whom ever to do what they need to with
> out having to fork or re-roll the entire framework.
>
> The important step is to note that these 3rd party roles or
> (oooq-extras) incubate, mature and then graduate to github/openstack.
> The upstream openstack community should lead, evaluate, and via
> blueprints vote on the canonical CI tool set.
>
> We can record a demonstration if required, but there is nothing stopping
> anyone right now from
> doing this today. I'm just browsing the role library for an example, I
> had no idea [1] existed.
> Looks like Raoul had a requirement and just made it work.
Yes, this is working on quickstart and it's part of the CI process we're
using to test HA stuff. But another example that can be made is the
ansible-role-tripleo-baremetal-undercloud role, which basically is
another thing we created to make our requirement (baremetal) satisfied.
>From this point of view I find quickstart (in truth everything for me
started with C.A.T.) very open in terms of potential contribution one
could make. If you guys think it can be useful I can fill up a document
in which I explain how one can add something to quickstart to satisfy a
requirement, I just don't know if this is what we are looking for in
this discussion.
--
Raoul Scarazzini
rasca at redhat.com
> Justin, from the browbeat project has graciously created some
> documentation regarding 3rd party roles.
> It has yet to merge, but it should help illustrate how these roles are
> used. [2]
>
> Thanks Arie for leading the discussion.
>
> [1] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-role-tripleo-overcloud-validate-ha
> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/346733/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I like the second option, although it still forces us to have two
> tools, but after a period of time, I believe it will be clear what the
> community prefers, which will allow us to remove one of the projects
> eventually.
>
> So, unless there are other ideas, I think the next move should be
> made by Tal.
>
> Tal, I'm willing to help with whatever is needed.
>
> [1] http://infrared.readthedocs.io/en/latest
>
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > [1] https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/tripleo-quickstart
> > [2]
> >
> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=ansible-role-tripleo
> > [3[ https://www.rdoproject.org/tripleo/
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Raoul - I totally agree with you, especially with "difficult for
> >> anyone to start contributing and collaborate". This is exactly why
> >> this discussion started. If we can agree on one set of tools, it will
> >> make everyone's life easier - current groups, new contributors, folks
> >> that just want to deploy TripleO quickly. But I'm afraid some
> >> sacrifices need to be made by both groups.
> >>
> >> David - I thought WeiRDO is used only for packstack, so I apologize I
> >> didn't include it. It does sound like an anther testing project, is
> >> there a place to merge it with another existing testing project? like
> >> Octario for example or one of TripleO testing projects. Or does it
> >> make sense to keep it a standalone project?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Christopher Brown
> <cbrown2 at ocf.co.uk <mailto:cbrown2 at ocf.co.uk>>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Hello RDOistas (I think that is the expression?),
> >> >
> >> > Another year, another OpenStack deployment tool. :)
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, 2016-08-01 at 18:59 +0100, Ignacio Bravo 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.
> >> >
> >> > This is exactly mine also. I think this works really well in
> very large
> >> > enterprise environments where you need to split out services
> over more
> >> > than three controllers. You do need good in-house puppet skills
> though
> >> > so better for enterprise with a good sysadmin team.
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Well, I found it barely usable. It was only ever good as a
> graphical
> >> > representiation of what the build was doing. Interacting with
> it was
> >> > not great.
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > Works well now that I understand all the foibles and have
> invested time
> >> > into understanding heat templates and puppet modules. Its good
> in that
> >> > it forces you to learn about orchestration which is such an
> important
> >> > end-goal of cloud environments.
> >> >
> >> >> 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.
> >> >
> >> > This is interesting to know. I've heard of Fuel of course but
> there are
> >> > some politics involved - it still has the team:single-vendor
> tag but
> >> > from what I see Mirantis are very keen for it to become the default
> >> > OpenStack installer. I don't think being Ansible-based should be a
> >> > problem - we are deploying OpenShift on OpenStack which uses
> Openshift-
> >> > ansible - this recently moved to Ansible 2.1 without too much
> >> > disruption.
> >> >
> >> >> I’d love to see RDO moving into that direction, and having an
> easy to
> >> >> use, end user ready deployer tool.
> >> >
> >> > If its as good as you say its definitely worth evaluating. From our
> >> > point of view, we want to be able to add services to the pacemaker
> >> > cluster with some ease - for example Magnum and Sahara - and it
> looks
> >> > like there are steps being taken with regards to composable
> roles and
> >> > simplification of the pacemaker cluster to just core services.
> >> >
> >> > But if someone can explain that better I would appreciate it.
> >> >
> >> > Regards
> >> >
> >> >> IB
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> __
> >> >> Ignacio Bravo
> >> >> LTG Federal, Inc
> >> >> 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>>
> >> >> > 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-openst
> >> >> > ack
> >> >> > [3]:
> https://github.com/openstack/puppet-openstack-integration#desc
> >> >> > ription
> >> >> > [4]: https://github.com/rdo-infra/ansible-role-weirdo-packstack
> >> >> > [5]:
> https://github.com/openstack/packstack#packstack-integration-t
> >> >> > ests
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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>>
> >> >> > 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=ansi
> >> >> > > ble-role
> >> >> > > [6] https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-quickstart
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > > 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>
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > 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>
> >> >>
> >> > --
> >> > Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Christopher Brown
> >> > OpenStack Engineer
> >> > OCF plc
> >> >
> >> > Tel: +44 (0)114 257 2200 <tel:%2B44%20%280%29114%20257%202200>
> >> > Web: www.ocf.co.uk <http://www.ocf.co.uk>
> >> > Blog: blog.ocf.co.uk <http://blog.ocf.co.uk>
> >> > Twitter: @ocfplc
> >> >
> >> > Please note, any emails relating to an OCF Support request must
> always
> >> > be sent to support at ocf.co.uk <mailto:support at ocf.co.uk> for a
> ticket number to be generated or
> >> > existing support ticket to be updated. Should this not be done
> then OCF
> >> > cannot be held responsible for requests not dealt with in a timely
> >> > manner.
> >> >
> >> > OCF plc is a company registered in England and Wales.
> Registered number
> >> > 4132533, VAT number GB 780 6803 14. Registered office address:
> OCF plc,
> >> > 5 Rotunda Business Centre, Thorncliffe Park, Chapeltown,
> Sheffield S35
> >> > 2PG.
> >> >
> >> > This message is private and confidential. If you have received this
> >> > message in error, please notify us immediately and remove it
> from your
> >> > system.
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > 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>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Arie Bregman
> >> Red Hat Israel
> >> Component CI: https://mojo.redhat.com/groups/rhos-core-ci/overview
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Arie Bregman
> Red Hat Israel
> Component CI: https://mojo.redhat.com/groups/rhos-core-ci/overview
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
More information about the dev
mailing list