> -----Original Message----- > From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsm...@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:29 AM > To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer > > Hi Neal, thanks for response. > > So I would see it as UNDERCLOUD_USE_UI (TripleO UI can be placed only to > Undercloud) > > And for overcloud: OVERCLOUD_USE_UI and > OVERCLOUD_USE_CEILOMETER, cause in > overcloud users might not want UI, but only data for billing. Does it > sound reasonable?
Yep, agreed that UI/metering are different use cases. Will work OVERCLOUD_USE_CEILOMETER use case into changes first, then address UI later if someone else hasn't picked it up. - Phil > > On 04/22/2014 06:23 PM, Neal, Phil wrote: > >> From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsm...@redhat.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:37 AM > >> To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer > >> > >> No response so far, but -1 on the image element for making Ceilometer > >> optional. > > Sorry for the delayed response, Ladislov. It turns out that the mailing list > was filtering out these TripleO mails for me. > > > > Let me add a little context to that -1: given that a TripleO user may not > > want > to enable a UI layer at the undercloud level (there's a use case for using the > undercloud solely for spinning up the overcloud), I think we want to support > as small a footprint as possible. > > > >> OK, so what about having variable in devtest_variables: USE_TRIPLEO_UI. > >> > > I like this approach better...in fact I will look into adding something > > similar > into the changes I'm making to enable Ceilometer by default in the overcloud > control node: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89625/1 > > > >> It would add Undercloud Ceilometer, Tuskar-UI and Horizon. And > Overcloud > >> SNMPd. > >> > >> Defaulted to USE_TRIPLEO_UI=1 so we have UI stuff in CI. > >> > >> How does it sound? > >> > > Perhaps specify something like "UNDERCLOUD_USE_TRIPLEO_UI" to be > more specific on where this will be deployed. > >> On 04/14/2014 01:31 PM, Ladislav Smola wrote: > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I am planning to add Ceilometer to Undercloud as default. Since > >>> Tuskar-UI uses > >>> it as primary source of metering samples and Tuskar should be in > >>> Undercloud > >>> as default, it made sense to me. > >>> > >>> So is my assumption correct or there are some reasons not to do this? > >>> > >>> Here are the reviews, that are adding working Undercloud Ceilometer: > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86915/ > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86917/ (depends on the template > >> change) > >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/87215/ > >>> > >>> Configuration for automatic obtaining of stats from all Overcloud > >>> nodes via. > >>> SNMP will follow soon. > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> Ladislav > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >>> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> OpenStack-dev mailing list > >> OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev