Hi,
> If I understand it correctly, the major issue is that by default fuel > installs ceilometer with no notifiers configured, > i.e. `- notifier://` while doctor requires a topic setting i.e. `- > notifier://?topic=alarm.all` Doctor team is not only one who need this config, but there could be other users who need this config in order to use/provide event-alarm. Actually, fuel seems to install aodh-listener, which is for event-alarm evaluation and listens bus with topic=alarm.all, in default. Fuel, however, doesn't configure event_pipeline.yaml of ceilometer correctly, so aodh-listener would be hanging a silent message bus. This is certainly a bug in fuel. Apex had the same issue, but they already fixed it. In ceilometer project, we had a discussion that we shouldn't send notification to aodh by setting this config *in default*, as it is different service, although is in the same telemetry umbrella. And, we left this config to an integrator and a packager. > Since there is no perfect way to resolve it, I would propose we choose a less > risky way at the release window. What about > we modify the configuration on the fly in doctor testing script and restore > to origin when the test is done. This could > be considered as part of the preparation of testing environment. +1 It should be easier to land. Best, Ryota > -----Original Message----- > From: Yujun Zhang [mailto:zhangyujun+...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:51 AM > To: TECH-DISCUSS OPNFV > Cc: Mibu Ryota(壬生 亮太); carlos.goncal...@neclab.eu; dong.wenj...@zte.com.cn > Subject: ##freemail## [doctor][fuel] how to modify ceilometer configuration > for doctor testing > > There has been quite a lot of discussion on how to deploy doctor test with > fuel installer [1] [2]. > > If I understand it correctly, the major issue is that by default fuel > installs ceilometer with no notifiers configured, > i.e. `- notifier://` while doctor requires a topic setting i.e. `- > notifier://?topic=alarm.all` > > > On both sides, we agree that the configuration required for one scenario > should not affect other scenarios. And we almost > agree that it can hardly be done if the scenarios requires different > configuration. We need either modify the configuration > with a scenario based plugin (fuel-doctor-plugin) [3] or the affected service > (ceilometer). > > Since there is no perfect way to resolve it, I would propose we choose a less > risky way at the release window. What about > we modify the configuration on the fly in doctor testing script and restore > to origin when the test is done. This could > be considered as part of the preparation of testing environment. > > We may leave the dispute on how to handle it gracefully and safely to next > release. What do you guys think? > > [1] https://gerrit.opnfv.org/gerrit/#/c/18285/ > [2] https://jira.opnfv.org/browse/FUEL-159 > [3] https://github.com/openzero-zte/fuel-plugin-doctor > _______________________________________________ opnfv-tech-discuss mailing list opnfv-tech-discuss@lists.opnfv.org https://lists.opnfv.org/mailman/listinfo/opnfv-tech-discuss
