On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 12:15 +0300, marios wrote: > On 07/05/15 05:32, Dan Prince wrote: > > Looking over some of the Puppet pacemaker stuff today. I appreciate all > > the hard work going into this effort but I'm not quite happy about all > > of the conditionals we are adding to our puppet overcloud_controller.pp > > manifest. Specifically it seems that every service will basically have > > its resources duplicated for pacemaker and non-pacemaker version of the > > controller by checking the $enable_pacemaker variable. > > > > After seeing it play out for a couple services I think I might prefer it > > better if we had an entirely separate template for the "pacemaker" > > version of the controller. One easy way to kick off this effort would be > > to use the Heat resource registry to enable pacemaker rather than a > > parameter. > > > > Something like this: > > > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/180833/ > > +1 I like this as an idea. Given we've already got quite a few reviews > in flight making changes to overcloud_controller.pp (we're still working > out how to, and enabling services) I'd be happier to let those land and > have the tidy up once it settles (early next week at the latest) - > especially since there's some working out+refactoring to do still,
My preference would be that we not go any further down the path of using $enable_pacemaker in the overcloud_controller.pp template. I don't think it would be that hard to convert existing reviews to use the new file would it? And removing the conditionals would just make it read more cleanly too. Dan > > thanks, marios > > > > > If we were to split out the controller into two separate templates I > > think it might be appropriate to move a few things into puppet-tripleo > > to de-duplicate a bit. Things like the database creation for example. > > But probably not all of the services... because we are trying as much as > > possible to use the stackforge puppet modules directly (and not our own > > composition layer). > > > > I think this split is a good compromise and would probably even speed up > > the implementation of the remaining pacemaker features too. And removing > > all the pacemaker conditionals we have from the non-pacemaker version > > puts us back in a reasonably clean state I think. > > > > Dan > > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: [email protected]?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
