On 07/05/15 16:34, Dan Prince wrote: > On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 12:15 +0300, marios wrote: >> On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote: >>> Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all >>> the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all >>> of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overcloud_controller.pp >>> manifest. Specifically it seems that every service will basically have >>> its resources duplicated for pacemaker and non-pacemaker version of the >>> controller by checking the $enable_pacemaker variable. >>> >>> After seeing it play out for a couple services I think I might prefer it >>> better if we had an entirely separate template for the "pacemaker" >>> version of the controller. One easy way to kick off this effort would be >>> to use the Heat resource registry to enable pacemaker rather than a >>> parameter. >>> >>> Something like this: >>> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/ >> >> +1 I like this as an idea. Given we've already got quite a few reviews >> in flight making changes to overcloud_controller.pp (we're still working >> out how to, and enabling services) I'd be happier to let those land and >> have the tidy up once it settles (early next week at the latest) - >> especially since there's some working out+refactoring to do still, > > My preference would be that we not go any further down the path of using > $enable_pacemaker in the overcloud_controller.pp template. > > I don't think it would be that hard to convert existing reviews to use > the new file would it? And removing the conditionals would just make it > read more cleanly too.
something like this should do it?: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/181015/1 I rebased onto yours and moved the enable_pacemaker stuff. If this is what we want to do then I can rebase my other two dependent patches too and do the same, marios > > Dan > >> >> thanks, marios >> >>> >>> If we were to split out the controller into two separate templates I >>> think it might be appropriate to move a few things into puppet-tripleo >>> to de-duplicate a bit. Things like the database creation for example. >>> But probably not all of the services... because we are trying as much as >>> possible to use the stackforge puppet modules directly (and not our own >>> composition layer). >>> >>> I think this split is a good compromise and would probably even speed up >>> the implementation of the remaining pacemaker features too. And removing >>> all the pacemaker conditionals we have from the non-pacemaker version >>> puts us back in a reasonably clean state I think. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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