On 28/10/14 21:23 +0100, Philip Cheong wrote:
Hi all,In preparation of the OpenStack Summit in Paris next week, I'm hoping to speak to some people in the OpenStack foundation about the benefits of a partnership with Hashicorp, who make fantastic tools like Vagrant and Packer (and others). As a n00b aspiring to become an OpenStack contributor, the variety of Vagrant devstack environments is pretty overwhelming. It appears to me that it really depends on what project you are contributing to, which denotes which devstack you should use. The ones I have tried take a long time (45 mins+) to provision from scratch. One aspect which I am acutely aware of is developer productivity and 45 minutes is a lot of time. Packer was designed to help alleviate bottleneck, and Vagrantcloud has inbuilt support for the versioning of Vagrant boxes. It would be a pretty straight forward exercise to use Packer to do a daily (or however often) build of a devstack box and upload it to Vagrantcloud for developers to download. With a decent internet connection that time would be significantly less than 45 minutes. I would really like to think that this community should also be able to come to a consensus over what to include in a "standard" devstack. That there currently seems to be many different flavours cannot help with issues of fragmentation between so many different moving parts to build an OpenStack environment. Another big issue that I hope to address with the foundation, is the integration of Hashicorp's tools with OpenStack. The various Vagrant plugins to add OpenStack as a provider is a mess. There is one specific for Rackspace who have a different Keystone API, and at least 3 others for the vanilla OpenStack: https://github.com/mitchellh/vagrant-rackspace https://github.com/ggiamarchi/vagrant-openstack-provider https://github.com/cloudbau/vagrant-openstack-plugin https://github.com/FlaPer87/vagrant-openstack
I'm pretty sure mine doesn't even work any more, I don't even know ruby ;) I do see a value in having a vagrant-openstack provider but I don't think we should pick one and mark it as blessed. We're trying very hard to move away from 'blessing' projecs, at the very least depend less on it. Anyone should feel free to create the provider on stackforge and maintain it. What would be even better is to have Hashicorp itself creating and maintaining this provider. Cheers, Flavio
The significance of not having an "official" provider, for one example, is when you use Packer to build an image in OpenStack and try to post-process it into a Vagrant box, it bombs with this error: ==> openstack: Running post-processor: vagrant Build 'openstack' errored: 1 error(s) occurred: * Post-processor failed: Unknown artifact type, can't build box: mitchellh.openstack Because Packer doesn't know what Vagrant expects the provider to be, as explained here. In my opinion this a pretty big issue holding back the wider acceptance of OpenStack. When I am at a customer and introduce them to tools like Vagrant and Packer and how well they work with AWS, I still avoid the conversation about OpenStack when I would really love to put them on our (Elastx's) public cloud. What say you? Could I get a +1 from those who see this as a worthwhile issue? Cheers, Phil. -- Philip Cheong Elastx | Public and Private PaaS email: [email protected] office: +46 8 557 728 10 mobile: +46 702 870 814 twitter: @Elastx http://elastx.se
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco
pgpJKR8bOPu2l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
