On 14.7.2017 23:00, Ben Nemec wrote:



On 07/14/2017 11:43 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
Out of curiosity, since I keep on hearing/reading all the tripleo
discussions on how tripleo folks are apparently thinking/doing?
redesigning the whole thing to use ansible + mistral + heat, or ansible
+ kubernetes or ansible + mistral + heat + ansible (a second time!) or ...

Seeing all those kinds of questions and suggestions around what should
be used and why and how (and even this thread) makes me really wonder
who actually uses tripleo and can afford/understand such kinds of changes?

Does anyone?

If there are <some folks/operators?> is there going to be an upgrade
path for there existing 'cloud/s' to whatever this solution is?

What operator(s) has the ability to do such a massive shift at this
point in time? Who are these 'mystical' operators?

All this has really peaked my curiosity because I am personally trying
to do that shift (not exactly the same solution...) and I know it is a
massive undertaking (that will take quite a while to get right) even for
a simple operator with limited needs out of openstack (ie godaddy); so I
don't really understand how the generic solution for all existing
tripleo operators can even work...

This is a valid point.  Up until now the answer has been that we
abstracted most of the ugliness of major changes behind either Heat or
tripleoclient.  If we end up essentially dropping those two in favor of
some other method of driving deployments it's going to be a lot harder
to migrate.  And I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it _is_ important
to our users to have an in-place upgrade path (see the first bullet
point in [1]).

New, shiny technology is great and all, but we do need to remember that
we have a lot of users out there already depending on the old,
not-so-shiny bits too.  They're not going to be happy if we leave them
hanging.

Exactly. Reuse is nice to have, while some sort of an upgrade path is a must have. We should be aware of this when selecting tools for Kubernetes.

Jirka


1: http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-June/119063.html


Flavio Percoco wrote:

Greetings,

As some of you know, I've been working on the second phase of TripleO's
containerization effort. This phase if about migrating the docker based
deployment onto Kubernetes.

These phase requires work on several areas: Kubernetes deployment,
OpenStack
deployment on Kubernetes, configuration management, etc. While I've been
diving
into all of these areas, this email is about the second point, OpenStack
deployment on Kubernetes.

There are several tools we could use for this task. kolla-kubernetes,
openstack-helm, ansible roles, among others. I've looked into these
tools and
I've come to the conclusion that TripleO would be better of by having
ansible
roles that would allow for deploying OpenStack services on Kubernetes.

The existing solutions in the OpenStack community require using Helm.
While I
like Helm and both, kolla-kubernetes and openstack-helm OpenStack
projects, I
believe using any of them would add an extra layer of complexity to
TripleO,
which is something the team has been fighting for years years -
especially now
that the snowball is being chopped off.

Adopting any of the existing projects in the OpenStack communty would
require
TripleO to also write the logic to manage those projects. For example,
in the
case of openstack-helm, the TripleO team would have to write either
ansible
roles or heat templates to manage - install, remove, upgrade - the
charts (I'm
happy to discuss this point further but I'm keepping it at a
high-level on
purpose for the sake of not writing a 10k-words-long email).

James Slagle sent an email[0], a couple of days ago, to form TripleO
plans
around ansible. One take-away from this thread is that TripleO is
adopting
ansible more and more, which is great and it fits perfectly with the
conclusion
I reached.

Now, what this work means is that we would have to write an ansible role
for
each service that will deploy the service on a Kubernetes cluster.
Ideally these
roles will also generate the configuration files (removing the need of
puppet
entirely) and they would manage the lifecycle. The roles would be
isolated and
this will reduce the need of TripleO Heat templates. Doing this would
give
TripleO full control on the deployment process too.

In addition, we could also write Ansible Playbook Bundles to contain
these roles
and run them using the existing docker-cmd implementation that is coming
out in
Pike (you can find a PoC/example of this in this repo[1]).

Now, I do realize the amount of work this implies and that this is my
opinion/conclusion. I'm sending this email out to kick-off the
discussion and
gather thoughts and opinions from the rest of the community.

Finally, what I really like about writing pure ansible roles is that
ansible is
a known, powerfull, tool that has been adopted by many operators
already. It'll
provide the flexibility needed and, if structured correctly, it'll allow
for
operators (and other teams) to just use the parts they need/want without
depending on the full-stack. I like the idea of being able to separate
concerns
in the deployment workflow and the idea of making it simple for users of
TripleO
to do the same at runtime. Unfortunately, going down this road means
that my
hope of creating a field where we could collaborate even more with other
deployment tools will be a bit limited but I'm confident the result
would also
be useful for others and that we all will benefit from it... My hopes
might be a
bit naive *shrugs*

Flavio

[0]
http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2017-July/119405.html
[1] https://github.com/tripleo-apb/tripleo-apbs

--
@flaper87
Flavio Percoco

__________________________________________________________________________

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

__________________________________________________________________________
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

Reply via email to