On Wed, 2016-03-23 at 07:54 -0400, Ryan Hallisey wrote: > *Snip* > > > > > Indeed, this has literally none of the benefits of the ideal Heat > > deployment enumerated above save one: it may be entirely the wrong > > tool > > in every way for the job it's being asked to do, but at least it > > is > > still well-integrated with the rest of the infrastructure. > > > > Now, at the Mitaka summit we discussed the idea of a 'split > > stack', > > where we have one stack for the infrastructure and a separate one > > for > > the software deployments, so that there is no longer any tight > > integration between infrastructure and software. Although it makes > > me a > > bit sad in some ways, I can certainly appreciate the merits of the > > idea > > as well. However, from the argument above we can deduce that if > > this is > > the *only* thing we do then we will end up in the very worst of > > all > > possible worlds: the wrong tool for the job, poorly integrated. > > Every > > single advantage of using Heat to deploy software will have > > evaporated, > > leaving only disadvantages. > I think Heat is a very powerful tool having done the container > integration > into the tripleo-heat-templates I can see its appeal. Something I > learned > from integration, was that Heat is not the best tool for container > deployment, > at least right now. We were able to leverage the work in Kolla, but > what it > came down to was that we're not using containers or Kolla to its max > potential. > > I did an evaluation recently of tripleo and kolla to see what we > would gain > if the two were to combine. Let's look at some items on tripleo's > roadmap. > Split stack, as mentioned above, would be gained if tripleo were to > adopt > Kolla. Tripleo holds the undercloud and ironic. Kolla separates > config > and deployment. Therefore, allowing for the decoupling for each > piece of > the stack. Composable roles, this would be the ability to land > services > onto separate hosts on demand. Kolla also already does this [1]. > Finally, > container integration, this is just a given :). > > In the near term, if tripleo were to adopt Kolla as its overcloud it > would > be provided these features and retire heat to setting up the > baremetal nodes > and providing those ips to ansible. This would be great for kolla > too because > it would provide baremetal provisioning. > > Ian Main and I are currently working on a POC for this as of last > week [2]. > It's just a simple heat template :). > > I think further down the road we can evaluate using kubernetes [3]. > For now though, kolla-anisble is rock solid and is worth using for > the > overcloud.
Yeah, well TripleO heat Overclouds are rock solid too. They just aren't using containers everywhere yet. So lets fix that. I'm not a fan of replacing the TripleO overcloud configuration with Kolla. I don't think there is feature parity, the architectures are different (HA, etc.) and I don't think you could easily pull off an upgrade from one deployment to the other (going from TripleO Heat template deployed overcloud to Kolla deployed overcloud). > > Thanks! > -Ryan > > [1] - https://github.com/openstack/kolla/blob/master/ansible/inventor > y/multinode > [2] - https://github.com/rthallisey/kolla-heat-templates > [3] - https://review.openstack.org/#/c/255450/ > > > _____________________________________________________________________ > _____ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs > cribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
