I don't think we should allow patching process to be interrupted, precisely because of the reasons you highlighted: additional complexity and risk of data loss. So my vote is 1) definitely not in this release; 2) probably not in any near-future releases.
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 5:28 AM, Evgeniy L <e...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hi, > > We were working on implementation of experimental feature > where user could interrupt openstack patching procedure [1]. > > It's not as easy to implement as we thought it would be. > Current stop deployment mechanism [2] stops puppet, erases > nodes and reboots them into bootstrap. It's ok for stop > deployment, but it's not ok for patching, because user > can loose his data. We can rewrite some logic in nailgun > and in orchestrator to stop puppet and not to erase nodes. > But I'm not sure if it works correctly because such use > case wasn't tested. And I can see the problems like > yum/apt-get locks cleaning after puppet interruption. > > As result I have several questions: > 1. should we try to make it work for the current release? > 2. if we shouldn't, will we need this feature for the future > releases? Definitely additional design and research is > required. > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1364907 > [2] > https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-astute/blob/b622d9b36dbdd1e03b282b9ee5b7435ba649e711/lib/astute/server/dispatcher.rb#L163-L164 > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > Post to : fuel-dev@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > -- Dmitry Borodaenko -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev Post to : fuel-dev@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~fuel-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp