ETA: experimental ISO w/o docker: tonight spec: tomorrow night
Vladimir Kozhukalov On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Anastasia Urlapova <aurlap...@mirantis.com> wrote: > @Vova, > thanks for bringing this up. > The new approach without docker containers on master node really has many > advantages. > > @Igor, > regarding your question, I would say that we have many dependencies from > containers in CI/CD systems and test's codebase. The test alignment to the > new implementation won't be easy. In such things we should move forward > step by step. > As you know the first step is a spec file, can you give us a link to it? > > > Nastya. > > On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Oleg Gelbukh <ogelb...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> With CentOS7 we will have python2.7 at Fuel Admin node as a default >> version, I believe. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Oleg Gelbukh, >> Principal Engineer >> Mirantis >> >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov < >> tnurlygaya...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Andrey, >>> >>> As far as I remember from the last usage of fuel master node, there was >>>> Centos + py26 installation. Python 2.6 is old enough and sometimes it is >>>> hard to launch some application on fuel node without docker (image with >>>> py27/py3). Are you planning to provide py27 at least or my note is outdated >>>> and I can already use py27 from the box? >>> >>> We can install docker on master node anyway to run Rally / Tempest or >>> other test suites and scripts from master node with Python 2.7 or something >>> also. >>> >>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Andrey Kurilin <akuri...@mirantis.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi! >>>> I'm not fuel developer, so opinion below is based on user-view. >>>> As far as I remember from the last usage of fuel master node, there was >>>> Centos + py26 installation. Python 2.6 is old enough and sometimes it is >>>> hard to launch some application on fuel node without docker (image with >>>> py27/py3). Are you planning to provide py27 at least or my note is outdated >>>> and I can already use py27 from the box? >>>> >>>> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < >>>> vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Dear colleagues, >>>>> >>>>> As might remember, we introduced Docker containers on the master node >>>>> a while ago when we implemented first version of Fuel upgrade feature. The >>>>> motivation behind was to make it possible to rollback upgrade process if >>>>> something goes wrong. >>>>> >>>>> Now we are at the point where we can not use our tarball based upgrade >>>>> approach any more and those patches that deprecate upgrade tarball has >>>>> been >>>>> already merged. Although it is a matter of a separate discussion, it seems >>>>> that upgrade process rather should be based on kind of backup and restore >>>>> procedure. We can backup Fuel data on an external media, then we can >>>>> install new version of Fuel from scratch and then it is assumed backed up >>>>> Fuel data can be applied over this new Fuel instance. The procedure itself >>>>> is under active development, but it is clear that rollback in this case >>>>> would be nothing more than just restoring from the previously backed up >>>>> data. >>>>> >>>>> As for Docker containers, still there are potential advantages of >>>>> using them on the Fuel master node, but our current implementation of the >>>>> feature seems not mature enough to make us benefit from the >>>>> containerization. >>>>> >>>>> At the same time there are some disadvantages like >>>>> >>>>> - it is tricky to get logs and other information (for example, rpm >>>>> -qa) for a service like shotgun which is run inside one of containers. >>>>> - it is specific UX when you first need to run dockerctl shell >>>>> {container_name} and then you are able to debug something. >>>>> - when building IBP image we mount directory from the host file >>>>> system into mcollective container to make image build faster. >>>>> - there are config files and some other files which should be >>>>> shared among containers which introduces unnecessary complexity to the >>>>> whole system. >>>>> - our current delivery approach assumes we wrap into rpm/deb >>>>> packages every single piece of the Fuel system. Docker images are not >>>>> an >>>>> exception. And as far as they depend on other rpm packages we forced to >>>>> build docker-images rpm package using kind of specific build flow. >>>>> Besides >>>>> this package is quite big (300M). >>>>> - I'd like it to be possible to install Fuel not from ISO but from >>>>> RPM repo on any rpm based distribution. But it is double work to >>>>> support >>>>> both Docker based and package based approach. >>>>> >>>>> Probably some of you can give other examples. Anyway, the idea is to >>>>> get rid of Docker containers on the master node and switch to plane >>>>> package >>>>> based approach that we used before. >>>>> >>>>> As far as there is nothing new here, we just need to use our old >>>>> site.pp (with minimal modifications), it looks like it is possible to >>>>> implement this during 8.0 release cycle. If there are no principal >>>>> objections, please give me a chance to do this ASAP (during 8.0), I know >>>>> it >>>>> is a huge risk for the release, but still I think I can do this. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Vladimir Kozhukalov >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Andrey Kurilin. >>>> >>>> >>>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Timur, >>> Senior QA Engineer >>> OpenStack Projects >>> Mirantis Inc >>> >>> >>> __________________________________________________________________________ >>> 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