[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas

----- Original Message -----
> > We could take an easier way and assume we only have 3 roles, as in the
> > current refactored code: controller, network, compute. The logic would
> > then be:
> >   - By default we install everything, so all in one
> >   - If our host is not CONFIG_CONTROLLER_HOST but is part of
> >   CONFIG_NETWORK_HOSTS, we apply the network manifest
> >   - Same as above if our host is part of CONFIG_COMPUTE_HOSTS
> >
> > Of course, the last two options would assume a first server is installed as
> > controller.
> >
> > This would allow us to reuse the same answer file on all runs (one per host
> > as you proposed), eliminate the ssh code as we are always running locally,
> > and make some assumptions in the python code, like expecting OPM to be
> > deployed and such. A contributed ansible wrapper to automate the runs
> > would be straightforward to create.
> >
> > What do you think? Would it be worth the effort?
> +2 I like that proposal a lot! An ansible wrapper is then just an
> example playbook in docs but could be done w/o ansible as well,
> manually or using some other remote execution tooling of user's
> choice.

Now that the phase 1 refactor is under review and passing CI, I think it's time to come to a conclusion on this.

This option looks like the best compromise between keeping it simple and dropping the least possible amount of features. So unless someone has a better idea, I'll work on that as soon as the current review is merged.


> Alan

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]