On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:34 PM Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > > Greetings, > > We have been supporting both Keepalived and Pacemaker to handle VIP > management. > Keepalived is actually the tool used by the undercloud when SSL is enabled > (for SSL termination). > While Pacemaker is used on the overcloud to handle VIPs but also services HA. > > I see some benefits at removing support for keepalived and deploying > Pacemaker by default: > - pacemaker can be deployed on one node (we actually do it in CI), so can be > deployed on the undercloud to handle VIPs and manage HA as well. > - it'll allow to extend undercloud & standalone use cases to support > multinode one day, with HA and SSL, like we already have on the overcloud. > - it removes the complexity of managing two tools so we'll potentially > removing code in TripleO. > - of course since pacemaker features from overcloud would be usable in > standalone environment, but also on the undercloud. > > There is probably some downside, the first one is I think Keepalived is much > more lightweight than Pacemaker, we probably need to run some benchmark here > and make sure we don't make the undercloud heavier than it is now.
The biggest downside IMO is the fact that our Pacemaker integration is not containerized. Nor are there any plans to finish the containerization of it. Pacemaker has to currently run on baremetal and this makes the installation of it for small dev/test setups a lot less desirable. It can launch containers just fine but the pacemaker installation itself is what concerns me for the long term. Until we have plans for containizing it I suppose I would rather see us keep keepalived as an option for these smaller setups. We can certainly change our default Undercloud to use Pacemaker (if we choose to do so). But having keepalived around for "lightweight" (zero or low footprint) installs that work is really quite desirable. Dan > > I went ahead and created this blueprint for Stein: > https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/undercloud-pacemaker-default > I also plan to prototype some basic code soon and provide an upgrade path if > we accept this blueprint. > > This is something I would like to discuss here and at the PTG, feel free to > bring questions/concerns, > Thanks! > -- > Emilien Macchi > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
