On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:42 AM Dan Prince <[email protected]> wrote: [...]
> 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. > That's a good point, and I agree with your proposal. Michele, what's the long term plan regarding containerized pacemaker? -- Emilien Macchi
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
