From: tbuskey gmail com <tbuskey gmail com> on behalf of Tom Buskey <tom buskey name>
Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2016 11:18 AM
To: Ivan Chavero
Cc: Boris Derzhavets; alan pevec; rdo-list; Javier Pena
Subject: Re: [rdo-list] Packstack refactor and future ideas
Having a tiny, multi-node, non-HA cloud has been extremely useful for developing anything that needs an Openstack cloud to talk to.
We don't care if the cloud dies. Our VM images and recipes are elsewhere. We rebuild the clouds as needed. We migrate to another working cloud while we rebuild if needed.
We need to test > 1 compute node but not 5 compute nodes. Ex: migration can't be done on a single node!
packstack is ideal. A 2 node cloud where both nodes need to do compute lets us run 20-30 VMs to test. We also need multiple clouds.
In current thread there were 2 major arguments why packstack has to be dropped ( or at least less functional
in regards of multinode support then currently in RDO Mitaka )
1. Multinode functionality cannot pass CI ( creating this tests is out of scope , hence it should be dropped)
If it is not tested , then it is not working BY DEFINITION ( I am quoting Alan word in word )
Why Lars Kellogg-Stedman provided "RDO Havana Hangout" via YouTube and as slide-show,
he was explaining packstack functionality which NEVER passed CI ?
Something happened in Mitaka/Newton times - TripleO stabilized ( first of all on bare metal )
2. Packstack is compromising RDO providing to customers wrong impression about RDO Core features
in reality and in meantime . Hence, it is breaking correct focus on Triple0 Bare Betal/TripleO QuickStart
( now virtual but supposed to handle bare metal ASAP) .
Regarding statement (2) I would better hold my opinion with myself.
We have "production" clouds and need a minimum of 3 nodes == 50% more costs and the controller is mostly idle. Going from 1 to 5 (7?) for a "real production" cloud is a big leap.
We don't need HA and the load on the controller is light enough that it can also handle compute.
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Ivan Chavero <ichavero redhat com> wrote: