Hey Dmitry, Thank you for your effort. I believe it's a huge step forward that opens number of possibilities.
> Every container runs systemd as PID 1 process instead of > supervisord or application / daemon. Taking into account that we're going to drop Docker containers, I think it was unnecessary complication of your work. Please sync-up with Vladimir Kozhukalov, he's working on getting rid of containers. > Every service inside a container is a systemd unit. Container build > procedure was modified, scripts setup.sh and start.sh were introduced > to be running during building and configuring phases respectively. Ditto. :) Thanks, Igor P.S: I wrote the mail and forgot to press "send" button. It looks like Oleg is already pointed out that I wanted to. On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:37 PM, Oleg Gelbukh <[email protected]> wrote: > Please, take into account the plan to drop the containerization of Fuel > services: > > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248814/ > > -- > Best regards, > Oleg Gelbukh > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 12:25 AM, Dmitry Teselkin <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> We've been working for some time on bringing CentOS-7 to master node, >> and now is the time to share and discuss the transition plan. >> >> First of all, what have been changed: >> * Master node itself runs on CentOS-7. Since all the containers share >> the same repo as master node they all have been migrated to CentOS-7 >> too. Every container runs systemd as PID 1 process instead of >> supervisord or application / daemon. >> * Every service inside a container is a systemd unit. Container build >> procedure was modified, scripts setup.sh and start.sh were introduced >> to be running during building and configuring phases respectively. >> The main reason for this was the fact that many puppet manifests use >> service management commands that require systemd daemon running. This >> also allowed to simplify Dockerfiles by removing all actions to >> setup.sh file. >> * We managed to find some bugs in various parts that were fixed too. >> * Bootstrap image is also CentOS-7 based. It was updated to better >> support it - some services converted to systemd units and fixes to >> support new network naming schema were made. >> * ISO build procedure was updated to reflect changes in CentOS-7 >> distribution and to support changes in docker build procedure. >> * Many applications was updated (puppet, docker, openstack >> components). >> * Docker containers moved to LVM volume to improve performance and get >> rid of annoying warning messages during master node deployment. >> bootstrap_admin_node.sh script was updated to fix some deployment >> issues (e.g. dracut behavior when there are multiple network >> interfaces available) and simplified by removing outdated >> functionality. It was also converted to a "run once" logon script >> instead of being run as a service, primarily because of a way it's >> used. >> >> As you can see there are a lot of changes were made. Some of them might >> be merged into current master if surrounded by conditionals to be >> compatible with current master node, but some of them simply can't. >> >> To simplify the code review process we've splitted CRs that we were >> using during active development to a set of smaller CRs and assigned >> the same topic centos7-master-nod to all of them [0]. >> >> So, here is the plan: >> * We will put a mark 'Breaks' in every commit message indicating if the >> CR is compatible with current master node. E.g. 'Breaks: centos-6' >> means it can't be merged without breaking things, but 'Breaks: >> nothing' means it OK to merge. >> * All the CRs should be reviewed, regardless of their 'breaks' label, >> and voted. We will not merge breaking CRs accidentally, only those >> that are safe will be merged. >> * While code review is in progress we will work on passing our custom >> ISO BVT and scale lab tests. When these tests pass - we will run >> swarm on top of this custom ISO. >> * In the meantime our QA infrastructure will be updated to support >> CentOS-7 master node - it should be compatible in most cases, >> however, there are some places that are not. We plan to make changes >> compatible with current ISO. >> * As soon as ISO becomes good enough we should take a deep breath and >> turn the switch by merging all the changes that will bring CentOS-7 >> to master branch (and break CentOS-6 version). This step requires >> all repositories involved to be frozen for small period of time, and >> that's why a merge freeze might be called. Immediately after all the >> changes are merged we will build new ISO and run reduced set of swarm >> tests. If the results are acceptable we will go on with CentOS-7. If >> not - we will revert breaking changes. >> >> >> [0] >> https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:centos7-master-node,n,z >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Dmitry Teselkin >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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
