Devananda,
Thank you for such a constructive letter,
First of all, just to make sure we are on the same page, we are totally +1
for using any tool which meets our requirements and we are totally +1 for
working together on the same problems. As you remember we suggested to add
advanced partition
New version of the spec:
https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138115/
Problem description updated.
Power interface part removed (not in scope of deploy driver).
On 12/09/2014 12:23 AM, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
I'd like to raise this topic for a wider discussion outside of the
hallway track
It is true that IPA and FuelAgent share a lot of functionality in common.
However there is a major difference between them which is that they are
intended to be used to solve a different problem.
IPA is a solution for provision-use-destroy-use_by_different_user use-case and
is really great for
Just a short explanation of Fuel use case.
Fuel use case is not a cloud. Fuel is a deployment tool. We install OS on
bare metal servers and on VMs
and then configure this OS using Puppet. We have been using Cobbler as our
OS provisioning tool since the beginning of Fuel.
However, Cobbler assumes
Good day Ironicers.
I do not want to discuss questions like Is feature X good for release
Y? or Is feature Z in Ironic scope or not?.
I want to get an answer for this: Is Ironic a flexible, easy extendable
and user-oriented solution for deployment?
Yes, it is I think. IPA is the great
Hi folks,
Thank you for additional explanation, it does clarify things a bit. I'd
like to note, however, that you talk a lot about how _different_ Fuel
Agent is from what Ironic does now. I'd like actually to know how well
it's going to fit into what Ironic does (in additional to your
Vladimir Kozhukalov
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Thank you for additional explanation, it does clarify things a bit. I'd
like to note, however, that you talk a lot about how _different_ Fuel Agent
is from what Ironic does now. I'd like
s/though/throw/g
Vladimir Kozhukalov
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 5:40 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov
vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote:
Vladimir Kozhukalov
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com
wrote:
Hi folks,
Thank you for additional explanation, it does clarify
On 12/09/2014 03:40 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
Vladimir Kozhukalov
On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Dmitry Tantsur dtant...@redhat.com
mailto:dtant...@redhat.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Thank you for additional explanation, it does clarify things a bit.
I'd like to note, however,
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:01:07PM +0400, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
Just a short explanation of Fuel use case.
Fuel use case is not a cloud. Fuel is a deployment tool. We install OS on
bare metal servers and on VMs
and then configure this OS using Puppet. We have been using Cobbler as our
On 12/09/2014 05:00 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:01:07PM +0400, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
Just a short explanation of Fuel use case.
Fuel use case is not a cloud. Fuel is a deployment tool. We install OS on
bare metal servers and on VMs
and then configure this OS
We assume next step will be to put provision data (disk partition
scheme, maybe other data) into driver_info and make Fuel Agent driver
able to serialize those data (special format) and implement a
corresponding data driver in Fuel Agent for this format. Again very
simple. Maybe it is time to
Vladimir,
IMO there is more global problem. Anyone who wants to use baremetal deploy
service should resolve problems with power management, PXE/iPXE support,
DHCP, etc. Or he/she can use Ironic. User has his own vision of deploy
workflow
and features needed for it. He hears from Ironic people:
everything.
Anyway, some things to think over.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jim Rollenhagen [j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 7:00 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic] Fuel agent
everything.
Anyway, some things to think over.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Jim Rollenhagen [j...@jimrollenhagen.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2014 7:00 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Ironic
Excerpts from Yuriy Zveryanskyy's message of 2014-12-09 04:05:03 -0800:
Good day Ironicers.
I do not want to discuss questions like Is feature X good for release
Y? or Is feature Z in Ironic scope or not?.
I want to get an answer for this: Is Ironic a flexible, easy extendable
and
Thank you for explaining in detail what Fuel's use case is. I was lacking
this information, and taking the FuelAgent proposal in isolation. Allow me
to respond to several points inline...
On Tue Dec 09 2014 at 4:08:45 AM Vladimir Kozhukalov
vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote:
Just a short
On Tue Dec 09 2014 at 7:49:32 AM Yuriy Zveryanskyy
yzveryans...@mirantis.com wrote:
On 12/09/2014 05:00 PM, Jim Rollenhagen wrote:
On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 04:01:07PM +0400, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
Many many various cases are possible. If you ask why we'd like to
support
all those
On Tue Dec 09 2014 at 10:13:52 AM Vladimir Kozhukalov
vkozhuka...@mirantis.com wrote:
Kevin,
Just to make sure everyone understands what Fuel Agent is about. Fuel
Agent is agnostic to image format. There are 3 possibilities for image
format
1) DISK IMAGE contains GPT/MBR table and all
On Tue Dec 09 2014 at 9:45:51 AM Fox, Kevin M kevin@pnnl.gov wrote:
We've been interested in Ironic as a replacement for Cobbler for some of
our systems and have been kicking the tires a bit recently.
While initially I thought this thread was probably another Fuel not
playing well with
I'd like to raise this topic for a wider discussion outside of the hallway
track and code reviews, where it has thus far mostly remained.
In previous discussions, my understanding has been that the Fuel team
sought to use Ironic to manage pets rather than cattle - and doing so
required extending
21 matches
Mail list logo
