I agree with Doug’s question, but also would extend the train of thought to ask why not help to make Chef or Puppet better and cover the more OpenStack use-cases rather than add yet another competing system?
Cheers, Morgan On January 9, 2014 at 10:24:06, Doug Hellmann (doug.hellm...@dreamhost.com) wrote: What capabilities would this new service give us that existing, proven, configuration management tools like chef and puppet don't have? On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Nachi Ueno <na...@ntti3.com> wrote: Hi Flavio Thank you for your input. I agree with you. oslo.config isn't right place to have server side code. How about oslo.configserver ? For authentication, we can reuse keystone auth and oslo.rpc. Best Nachi 2014/1/9 Flavio Percoco <fla...@redhat.com>: > On 08/01/14 17:13 -0800, Nachi Ueno wrote: >> >> Hi folks >> >> OpenStack process tend to have many config options, and many hosts. >> It is a pain to manage this tons of config options. >> To centralize this management helps operation. >> >> We can use chef or puppet kind of tools, however >> sometimes each process depends on the other processes configuration. >> For example, nova depends on neutron configuration etc >> >> My idea is to have config server in oslo.config, and let cfg.CONF get >> config from the server. >> This way has several benefits. >> >> - We can get centralized management without modification on each >> projects ( nova, neutron, etc) >> - We can provide horizon for configuration >> >> This is bp for this proposal. >> https://blueprints.launchpad.net/oslo/+spec/oslo-config-centralized >> >> I'm very appreciate any comments on this. > > > > I've thought about this as well. I like the overall idea of having a > config server. However, I don't like the idea of having it within > oslo.config. I'd prefer oslo.config to remain a library. > > Also, I think it would be more complex than just having a server that > provides the configs. It'll need authentication like all other > services in OpenStack and perhaps even support of encryption. > > I like the idea of a config registry but as mentioned above, IMHO it's > to live under its own project. > > That's all I've got for now, > FF > > -- > @flaper87 > Flavio Percoco > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
