This is mostly for Kevin and Stephen.
Stephen provisioned fed-cloud09.cloud.fedoraproject.org to RHEL7.
I installed there new OpenStack instance using [1].
I make git-clone and files are in:
/root/openstack-ansible-install
I modified var/* to match IP and generated new passwords.
It would be
Hi,
what is the status of the new openstack instance? The old one is becoming pain
with every new day.
Miroslav
___
infrastructure mailing list -- infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to infrastructure-le
On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 13:32:55 +0200
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> This is mostly for Kevin and Stephen.
>
> Stephen provisioned fed-cloud09.cloud.fedoraproject.org to RHEL7.
>
> I installed there new OpenStack instance using [1].
...snip...
So, I finally found time to play around
Since I'm leaving for one week vacation, I think I may write down current
status of our new OpenStack instance and write
down TODO list. Just in case someone is desperate enough to do some fixes.
I updated docs.git/cloud.txt - mainly which playbooks we use right now and
where to write do
On 04/13/2018 02:03 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Hi,
> what is the status of the new openstack instance? The old one is becoming
> pain with every new day.
Patrick has done a lot of work on it, and hopefully we can stand it up
soon, but before he could finish it he got sucked in
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 15:32:15 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Since I'm leaving for one week vacation, I think I may write down
> current status of our new OpenStack instance and write down TODO
> list. Just in case someone is desperate enough to do some fixes.
I poked at it some (
On 03/02/2015 04:00 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I guess it it only rebooted after
> packstack first runs it could work.
That is what I meant. Only needed once, but still nice to have it automated.
>> > * routing between compute nodes and controller using public IP does
>> > not work. Not fatal right
All services are using SSL but novncproxy, which does not worked for me and
according some random notes on internet does
not work over SSL due some bugs.
But novncproxy does not work for me even over plain http. And I do not know
why. If somebody else can check it, it would
be great.
Strange thin
On 03/06/2015 04:02 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> I tried to automatize adding of SSH keys using this:
>
> TASK: [shell source /root/keystonerc_admin && F=$(mktemp) && {{ lookup('pipe',
> '/srv/web/infra/ansible/scripts/auth-keys-from-fas msuchy') }}> "$F" && nova
> --os-username msuchy --os-passwo
On Fri, 06 Mar 2015 16:02:39 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> All services are using SSL but novncproxy, which does not worked for
> me and according some random notes on internet does not work over SSL
> due some bugs. But novncproxy does not work for me even over plain
> http. And I do not know wh
Oh a few more minor things before we bring new cloud live:
* We should decide on a name and get a real ssl cert. currently,
cloud.fedoraproject.org goes to a doc page about Fedora cloud stuff.
We could use 'openstack.fedoraproject.org' or 'private-cloud' or ? We
could also add alternate CN'
On 03/07/2015 07:29 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * I see that the tenants have the same internal 172.16.0.0 net right
> now, can we make sure we seperate them from each other? ie, I don't
> want a infrastructure instance being able to talk to a copr builder
> if we can avoid it.
Are you sure?
F
On 03/07/2015 06:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> All thats set and I can see console in the web dash again just fine for
> any of the instances I tried, and they are all https using only.
Works for me too. Nice. Thanks.
>> > I tried to automatize adding of SSH keys using this:
> I wonder if we shoul
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 10:29:36 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 07:29 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * I see that the tenants have the same internal 172.16.0.0 net right
> > now, can we make sure we seperate them from each other? ie, I
> > don't want a infrastructure instance being able to
On 03/07/2015 06:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * Can we adjust the default tennat quotas in the playbooks? They seem a
> bit low to me given the amount of resources we have.
I put (and tested) the quota for Copr (it is on bottom of playbook).
Can you please write quotas for other tenants (or you
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 11:25:20 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 06:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > All thats set and I can see console in the web dash again just fine
> > for any of the instances I tried, and they are all https using
> > only.
>
> Works for me too. Nice. Thanks.
Cool.
On 03/09/2015 01:00 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> nova commands worked fine from here, but I didn't really try and do
> anything fancy. We could see if the euca stuff will just keep working
> for us for now.
It works fine. It is just that if you miss some functionality (and I miss a
lot) and file RFE
On 03/07/2015 06:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> * We will need to adapt to not giving every instance a floating ip. For
> copr, I think this would be fine, as you don't care that they have
*nod* I was not sure how VM behave when does not have public IP so I tested it.
It is basicaly behind NAT and
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:48:49 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 06:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * We will need to adapt to not giving every instance a floating ip.
> > For copr, I think this would be fine, as you don't care that they
> > have
>
> *nod* I was not sure how VM behave when
On 03/09/2015 10:29 AM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 07:29 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> > * I see that the tenants have the same internal 172.16.0.0 net right
>> > now, can we make sure we seperate them from each other? ie, I don't
>> > want a infrastructure instance being able to talk to
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 14:39:52 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>
> So it would be:
> # 172.16.0.1/16 -- 172.21.0.1/20- Free to take
> # 172.23.0.1/16 - free (but used by old cloud)
> # 172.24.0.1/24 - RESERVED it is used internally for OS
> # 172.25.0.1/20 - Cloudintern (172.25.0.1 - 172.25.1
Hi guys :),
On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> So it would be:
> # 172.16.0.1/16 -- 172.21.0.1/20- Free to take
> # 172.23.0.1/16 - free (but used by old cloud)
> # 172.24.0.1/24 - RESERVED it is used internally for OS
> # 172.25.0.1/20 - Cloudintern (172.25.0.1 - 1
On Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:00:20 +0100
Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> On 03/07/2015 06:59 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > * Can we adjust the default tennat quotas in the playbooks? They
> > seem a bit low to me given the amount of resources we have.
>
> I put (and tested) the quota for Copr (it is on bottom o
23 matches
Mail list logo
