On 16.8.2018 07:39, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
On 08/16/2018 12:10 AM, Jason E. Rist wrote:
On 08/15/2018 03:32 AM, Cédric Jeanneret wrote:
Dear Community,
As you may know, a move toward Podman as replacement of Docker is starting.
One of the issues with podman is the lack of daemon, precisely the lack
of a socket allowing to send commands and get a "computer formatted
output" (like JSON or YAML or...).
In order to work that out, Podman has added support for varlink¹, using
the "socket activation" feature in Systemd.
On my side, I would like to push forward the integration of varlink in
TripleO deployed containers, especially since it will allow the following:
# proper interface with Paunch (via python link)
# a way to manage containers from within specific containers (think
"healthcheck", "monitoring") by mounting the socket as a shared volume
# a way to get container statistics (think "metrics")
# a way, if needed, to get an ansible module being able to talk to
podman (JSON is always better than plain text)
# a way to secure the accesses to Podman management (we have to define
how varlink talks to Podman, maybe providing dedicated socket with
dedicated rights so that we can have dedicated users for specific tasks)
That said, I have some questions:
° Does any of you have some experience with varlink and podman interface?
° What do you think about that integration wish?
° Does any of you have concern with this possible addition?
Thank you for your feedback and ideas.
Have a great day (or evening, or whatever suits the time you're reading
this ;))!
C.
¹ https://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2018/05/podman-varlink/
__________________________________________________________________________
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
How might this effect upgrades?
What exactly? addition of varlink, or the whole podman thingy? The
question was more about "varlink" than "podman" in fact - I should maybe
have worded things otherwise... ?
Varlink shouldn't be a problem as it's just an additive interface.
Switching container runtime might be a bit difficult though :)
When running any upgrade, we stop any containers that need updating, and
replace them with new ones. In theory we could just as well start the
new ones using a different runtime, all we need is to keep the same bind
mounts etc. What would need to be investigated is whether support for
this (stopping on one runtime, starting on another) needs to be
implemented directly into tools like Paunch and Pacemaker, or if we can
handle this one-time scenario just with additional code in
upgrade_tasks. It might be a combination of both.
Problem might come with sidecar containers for Neutron, which generally
don't like being restarted (it can induce data plane downtime). Advanced
hackery might be needed on this front... :)
Either way i think we'd have to do some PoC of such migration before
fully committing to it.
Jirka
-J
__________________________________________________________________________
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
