Hey, I'll just throw a grenade (pun intended) into your discussion - sorry! How about kolla-kubernetes? State awareness is done by kubernetes, it's designed for containers and we already have most of services ready and we'll be running ansible inside containers on top of k8s, for all the things that k8s is not natively good at. Sounds like somewhat you describe just switch heat with k8s.
Cheers, Michal On 10 July 2017 at 08:37, Lars Kellogg-Stedman <l...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 1:50 PM, James Slagle <james.sla...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> There are also some ideas forming around pulling the Ansible playbooks >> >> and vars out of Heat so that they can be rerun (or run initially) >> independently from the Heat SoftwareDeployment delivery mechanism: > > > I think the closer we can come to "the operator runs ansible-playbook to > configure the overcloud" the better, but not because I think Ansible is > inherently a great tool: rather, I think the many layers of indirection in > our existing model make error reporting and diagnosis much more complicated > that it needs to be. Combined with Puppet's "fail as late as possible" > model, this means that (a) operators waste time waiting for a deployment > that is ultimately going to fail but hasn't yet, and (b) when it does fail, > they need relatively intimate knowledge of our deployment tools to backtrack > through logs and find the root cause of the failure. > > If we can offer a deployment mode that reduces the number of layers between > the operator and the actions being performed on the hosts I think we would > win on both fronts: faster failures and reporting errors as close as > possible to the actual problem will result in less frustration across the > board. > > I do like Steve's suggestion of a split model where Heat is responsible for > instantiating OpenStack resources while Ansible is used to perform host > configuration tasks. Despite all the work done on Ansible's OpenStack > modules, they feel inflexible and frustrating to work with when compared to > Heat's state-aware, dependency ordered deployments. A solution that allows > Heat to output configuration that can subsequently be consumed by Ansible -- > either running manually or perhaps via Mistral for API-driven-deployments -- > seems like an excellent goal. Using Heat as a "front-end" to the process > means that we get to keep the parameter validation and documentation that is > missing in Ansible, while still following the Unix philosophy of giving you > enough rope to hang yourself if you really want it. > > -- > Lars Kellogg-Stedman <l...@redhat.com> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
