Paul Belanger <> writes:

> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 08:28:27AM -0500, David Shrewsbury wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 10:25 PM, Ian Wienand <> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > How should we go about restricting certain image builds to specific
>> > nodepool builder instances?  My immediate issue is with ARM64 image
>> > builds, which I only want to happen on a builder hosted in an ARM64
>> > cloud.
>> >
>> > Currently, the builders go through the image list and check "is the
>> > existing image missing or too old, if so, build" [1].  Additionally,
>> > all builders share a configuration file [2]; so builders don't know
>> > "who they are".
>> >
>> >
>> Why not just split the builder configuration file? I don't see a need to
>> add code
>> to do this.
> In our case (openstack-infra) this will require another change to
> puppet-nodepool to support this. Not that we cannot, but it will now mean 
> we'll
> have 7[1] different nodepool configuration files to now manage. 4 x
> nodepool-launchers, 3 x nodepool-builders, since we have 7 services running.

This seems like a pretty legitimate case to split the config.  Very
little of the config for the arm64 builder will be shared with any of
the other builders, so perhaps unlike the case where one simply wants
high-availability launchers, this seems like a very sensible use of a
separate config file.

At any rate, that's what we should do in openstack-infra to solve the
issue Ian asked about.


OpenStack-Infra mailing list

Reply via email to