On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Mark Hamzy <ha...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> I just need an understanding on the impact and the timeline. Replying >> here is sufficient. >> >> I assume since some of this work was sort of done earlier outside of >> tripleo and does not affect the default installation path that most >> folks will consume, it shouldn't be impacting to general testing or >> increase regressions. My general requirement for anyone who needed an >> FFE for functionality that isn't essential is that it's off by >> default, has minimal impact to the existing functionality and we have >> a rough estimate on feature landing. Do you have idea when you expect >> to land this functionality? Additionally the patches seem to be >> primarily around the ironic integration so have those been sorted out? > > I have been working on a multi-architecture patch for TripleO and am almost > ready to submit a WIP to r.o.o. I have delayed until I can get all of the > testcases passing. >
Please submit ASAP so we can get a proper review of what is actually impacted. The failing test cases would also indicate how much of an impact this really is. > Currently the patches exist at: > https://hamzy.fedorapeople.org/TripleO-multi-arch/05.bb2b96e/0001-fix_multi_arch-tripleo-common.patch > https://hamzy.fedorapeople.org/TripleO-multi-arch/05.cc5fee3/0001-fix_multi_arch-python-tripleoclient.patch > > And the full installation instructions are at: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Hamzy/TripleO_mixed_undercloud_overcloud_try9 > > What I have done at a high level is to rename the images into architecture > specific > images. For example, > > (undercloud) [stack@oscloud5 ~]$ openstack image list > +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------+ > | ID | Name | > Status | > +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------+ > | fa0ed7cb-21d7-427b-b8cb-7c62f0ff7760 | ppc64le-bm-deploy-kernel | > active | > | 94dc2adf-49ce-4db5-b914-970b57a8127f | ppc64le-bm-deploy-ramdisk | > active | > | 6c50587d-dd29-41ba-8971-e0abf3429020 | ppc64le-overcloud-full | > active | > | 59e512a7-990e-4689-85d2-f1f4e1e6e7a8 | x86_64-bm-deploy-kernel | > active | > | bcad2821-01be-4556-b686-31c70bb64716 | x86_64-bm-deploy-ramdisk | > active | > | 3ab489fa-32c7-4758-a630-287c510fc473 | x86_64-overcloud-full | > active | > | 661f18f7-4d99-43e8-b7b8-f5c8a9d5b116 | x86_64-overcloud-full-initrd | > active | > | 4a09c422-3de0-46ca-98c3-7c6f1f7717ff | x86_64-overcloud-full-vmlinuz | > active | > +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------+--------+ > > This will change existing functionality. > Any chance of backwards compatibility if no arch is specified in the image list so it's not that impacting? > I still need to work with RedHat on changing the patch for their needs, but > it currently can > deploy an x86_64 undercloud, an x86_64 overcloud controller node and a > ppc64le overcloud > compute node. > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev