On Jun 8, 2016 11:33 PM, "Ivan Chavero" <<a href="mailto:ichavero@redhat.com">ichavero@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Moreau Simard" <<a href="mailto:dms@redhat.com">dms@redhat.com</a>> > > To: "Ivan Chavero" <<a href="mailto:ichavero@redhat.com">ichavero@redhat.com</a>> > > Cc: "Javier Pena" <<a href="mailto:javier.pena@redhat.com">javier.pena@redhat.com</a>>, "rdo-list" <<a href="mailto:rdo-list@redhat.com">rdo-list@redhat.com</a>> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 3:37:08 PM > > Subject: Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas > > > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 3:27 PM, Ivan Chavero <<a href="mailto:ichavero@redhat.com">ichavero@redhat.com</a>> wrote: > > > I think it can be reduced to a single manifest per node. > > > Also, when a review is created it would be easier to check if you create > > > one > > > review for the python, puppet, tests and release notes. > > > > This would not pass CI and thus could not be merged. > > If there are separate commits, each must pass CI. > > well, make it just one big commit if there's no way around this > > > Otherwise, my opinion is that Packstack should focus on being a lean, > > simple and efficient single node installation tool that targets the > > same use case as DevStack but for the RHEL-derivatives and RDO/OSP > > population. > > A tool that is lightweight, simple (to an extent), easy to extend and > > add new projects in and focuses on developers and proof of concepts. > > > I don't believe Packstack should be able to handle multi-node by itself. > > I don't think I am being pessimistic by saying there is too few > > resources contributing to Packstack to make multi-node a good story. > > We're not testing Packstack multi-node right now and testing it > > properly is really hard, just ask the whole teams of people focused on > > just testing TripleO. > > So in your opinion we should drop features that packstack already has > because this are difficult to test. > I don't agree with this, we can set the untested features as "experimental" > or "unsupported" > > > > If Packstack is really good at installing things on one node, an > > advanced/experienced user could have Packstack install components on > > different servers if that is what he is looking for. > > > > Pseudo-code: > > - Server 1: packstack --install-rabbitmq=y --install-mariadb=y > > - Server 2: packstack --install-keystone=y --rabbitmq-server=server1 > > --database-server=server1 > > - Server 3: packstack --install-glance=y --keystone-server=server2 > > --database-server=server1 --rabbitmq-server=server1 > > - Server 4: packstack --install-nova=y --keystone-server=server2 > > --database-server=server1 --rabbitmq-server=server1 > > (etc) > > I can be wrong but right now Packstack can already do this stuff, > more command line options are needed or it might need little tweaks to the > code but this is not far from current Packstack options. > > > So in my concept, Packstack is not able to do multi node by itself but > > provides the necessary mechanisms to allow to be installed across > > different nodes. > > If an orchestration or wrapper mechanism is required, Ansible is a > > obvious choice but not the only one. > > Using Ansible would, notably, make it easy to rip out all the python > > code that's around executing things on servers over SSH. > > > > > I think this refactor discussion should focus on a proper puppet usage and > optimizations instead of retiring stuff that already works. > Actually Packstack used to be able to install all the components in different > nodes and this feature was modified to the current limited multinode features. > > We need a tool like Packstack so users can try RDO without the complexity of > TripleO, imagine you're new to OpenStack and you want to test it in different > scenarios, not everybody has a spare machine with 16GB of ram just to test, not to > mention the fact of understanding the concept of undercloud before understanding > the key concepts of OpenStack. > > Cheers, > Ivan Here's a possibly stupid question, indulge me.... Seems like we're always going to need a simple (ish) tool that just installs the openstack services on a single machine, without any need for VMs. In fact, the tripleo installer - instack - is one such tool. Packstack is another, more flexible such tool. Should we consider merging or adapting them to be the same tool? -Hugh > > _______________________________________________ > rdo-list mailing list > <a href="mailto:rdo-list@redhat.com">rdo-list@redhat.com</a> > <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list</a> > > To unsubscribe: <a href="mailto:rdo-list-unsubscribe@redhat.com">rdo-list-unsubscribe@redhat.com</a>