Joshua Harlow wrote:
Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Joshua Harlow's message of 2016-06-07 08:46:28 -0700:
Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Kris G. Lindgren's message of 2016-06-06 20:44:26 +0000:
Hi ironic folks,
As I'm trying to explore how GoDaddy can use ironic I've created
the following in an attempt to document some of my concerns, and
I'm wondering if you folks could help myself identity ongoing work
to solve these (or alternatives?)
Hi Kris. I've been using Ironic in various forms for a while, and I can
answer a few of these things.
List of concerns with ironic:
1.)Nova<-> ironic interactions are generally seem terrible?
I don't know if I'd call it terrible, but there's friction. Things that
are unchangable on hardware are just software configs in vms (like mac
addresses, overlays, etc), and things that make no sense in VMs are
pretty standard on servers (trunked vlans, bonding, etc).
One way we've gotten around it is by using Ironic standalone via
Bifrost[1]. This deploys Ironic in wide open auth mode on 127.0.0.1,
and includes playbooks to build config drives and deploy images in a
fairly rudimentary way without Nova.
I call this the "better than Cobbler" way of getting a toe into the
Ironic waters.
[1] https://github.com/openstack/bifrost
Out of curiosity, why ansible vs turning
https://github.com/openstack/nova/blob/master/nova/virt/ironic/driver.py
(or something like it) into a tiny-wsgi-app (pick useful name here) that
has its own REST api (that looks pretty similar to the public functions
in that driver file)?
That's an interesting idea. I think a reason Bifrost doesn't just import
nova virt drivers is that they're likely _not_ a supported public API
(despite not having _'s at the front). Also, a lot of the reason Bifrost
exists is to enable users to get the benefits of all the baremetal
abstraction work done in Ironic without having to fully embrace all of
OpenStack's core. So while you could get a little bit of the stuff from
nova (like config drive building), you'd still need to handle network
address assignment, image management, etc. etc., and pretty soon you
start having to run a tiny glance and a tiny neutron. The Bifrost way
is the opposite: I just want a tiny Ironic, and _nothing_ else.
Ya, I'm just thinking that at a certain point
Oops forgot to fill this out, was just thinking that at a certain point
it might be easier to figure out how to extract that API (meh, if its
public or private) and just have someone make an executive decision
around ironic being a stand-alone thing or not (and a capable
stand-alone thing, not a sorta-standalone-thing).
That seems almost easier than building a bunch of ansible scripts that
appear (at a glance) to do similar things; and u get the benefit of
using a actual programming language vs a
half-programming-ansible-yaml-language...
A realization I'm having is that I'm really not a fan of using ansible
as a half-programming-ansible-yaml-language, which it seems like people
start to try to do after a while (because at some point you need
something like if statements, then things like [1] get created), no
offense to the authors, but I guess this is my personal preference (it's
also one of the reasons taskflow directly is a lib. in python, because
<meh>, people don't need to learn a new language).
We use python in Ansible all the time:
http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/bifrost/tree/playbooks/library
The reason to use Ansible is that it has already implemented all of
the idempotency and error handling and UI needs that one might need for
running workflows.
I've tried multiple times to understand taskflow, and to me, Ansible is
the anti-taskflow. It's easy to pick up, easy to read the workflows,
doesn't require deep surgery on your code to use (just execute
ansible-playbook), and is full of modules to support nearly anything
your deployment may need.
Actually they are pretty similar (to a degree), taskflow is pretty much
the same/similar thing ansible is using internally, a graph structure
(last time I checked) that gets ran in parallel or in serial using a
executor concept[1].
Said surgery is only required if you want a deep integration, nothing is
stopping folks from using taskflow in the same manner as running a bunch
of task == similar to ansible style (taskflow also doesn't need to have
its own module concepts as pypi modules primarily just work because it's
python).
But ya, anyway... can't win over everyone ;)
[1] https://github.com/ansible/ansible/tree/devel/lib/ansible/executor
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
__________________________________________________________________________
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
