Alex, I absolutely understand the point you are making about need for deployment engineers to modify things 'on the fly' in customer environment. It's makes things really flexible and lowers the entry barrier for sure.
However, I would like to note that in my opinion this kind on 'monkey patching' is actually a bad practice for any environments other than dev ones. It immediately leads to emergence of unsupportable frankenclouds. I would greet any modification to the workflow that will discourage people from doing that. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Schultz <aschu...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Hey Vladimir, > > > >> Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional >> DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use >> additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin >> specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment >> approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks >> (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. >> >> > Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library > distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate > that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path > than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place > that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the > package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed > work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for > the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and > customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about > packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't > have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the > fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar > to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I > don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So > without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. > > >> Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet >> modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages >> installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather >> than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain >> rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have >> convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you >> need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be >> available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with >> building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we >> install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else >> like nova, mysql, etc.? >> >> > Yes, we do have a service like Perestroika to build packages for us. That > doesn't mean everyone else does or has access to do that today. Setting up > a build system is a major undertaking and making that a hard requirement to > interact with our product may be a bit much for some customers. In > speaking with some support folks, there are times when files have to be > munged to get around issues because there is no package or things are on > fire so they can't wait for a package to become available for a fix. We > need to be careful not to impose limits without proper justification and > due diligence. We already build the fuel-library package, so there's no > reason you couldn't try switching the rsync to install the package if it's > available on a mirror. I just think you're going to run into the issues I > mentioned which need to be solved before we could just mark it done. > > -Alex > > > >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alex Schultz <aschu...@mirantis.com> >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just >>> update the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a >>> few issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to >>> properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include >>> puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. >>> Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except >>> the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install >>> actions that are only valid for the master. Another issue is being >>> flexible enough to allow for deployment engineers to make custom changes >>> for a given environment. Unless we can provide an improved process to >>> allow for people to provide in place modifications for an environment, we >>> can't do away with the rsync. >>> >>> If we want to go completely down the package route (and we probably >>> should), we need to make sure that all of the other pieces that currently >>> go together to make a complete fuel deployment can be updated in the same >>> way. >>> >>> -Alex >>> >>> > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
