Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer

2014-04-23 Thread Ladislav Smola

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?


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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer

2014-04-23 Thread Neal, Phil


 -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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer

2014-04-22 Thread Neal, Phil
 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


Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer

2014-04-16 Thread Ladislav Smola
No response so far, but -1 on the image element for making Ceilometer 
optional.


OK, so what about having variable in devtest_variables: USE_TRIPLEO_UI.

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?


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] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer

2014-04-14 Thread Ladislav Smola

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