Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
+1 to y'all :) We already have a blueprint to enable building Fuel packages with Perestroika: https://blueprints.launchpad.net/fuel/+spec/build-fuel-packages-using-perestroika Between that and packaging Perestroika itself as a self-sufficient tool that a developer can easily set up and run locally (which we also need a blueprint for), I think we'd have enough tools to distribute fuel-library to target node as packages both in production, and, without too much additional effort, as part of development workflow. -DmitryB On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 10:59:40PM +0300, Andrey Danin wrote: > I support this proposal but I just wanted to mention that we'll lose an > easy way to develop manifests. I agree that manifests in this case have no > difference with Neutron code, for instance. But anyway I +1 this, > especially with Vova Kuklin's additions. > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Vladimir Kuklin > wrote: > > > Folks > > > > I have a strong +1 for the proposal to decouple master node and slave > > nodes. > > Here are the stregnths of this approach > > 1) We can always decide which particular node runs which particular set of > > manifests. This will allow us to do be able to apply/roll back changes > > node-by-node. This is very important from operations perspective. > > 2) We can decouple master and slave nodes manifests and not drag new > > library version onto the master node when it is not needed. This allows us > > to decrease probability of regressions > > 3) This makes life easier for the user - you just run 'apt-get/yum > > install' instead of some difficult to digest `mco` command. > > > > The only weakness that I see here is on mentioned by Andrey. I think we > > can fix it by providing developers with clean and simple way of building > > library package on the fly. This will make developers life easier enough to > > work with proposed approach. > > > > Also, we need to provide ways for better UX, like provide one button/api > > call for: > > > > 1) update all manifests on particular nodes (e.g. all or only a part of > > nodes of the cluster) to particular version > > 2) revert all manifests back to the version which is provided by the > > particular GA release > > 3) > > > > So far I would mark need for simple package-building system for developer > > as a dependency for the proposed change, but I do not see any other way > > than proceeding with it. > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk < > > sgolovat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > > > >> Oleg, > >> > >> Alex gave a perfect example regarding support folks when they need to fix > >> something really quick. It's client's choice what to patch or not. You may > >> like it or not, but it's client's choice. > >> > >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 09:33, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: > >> > >> Alex, > >> > >> I absolutely understand the point you are making about need for > >> deployment engineers to modify things 'on the fly' in customer environment. > >> It's makes things really flexible and lowers the entry barrier for sure. > >> > >> However, I would like to note that in my opinion this kind on 'monkey > >> patching' is actually a bad practice for any environments other than dev > >> ones. It immediately leads to emergence of unsupportable frankenclouds. I > >> would greet any modification to the workflow that will discourage people > >> from doing that. > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Oleg Gelbukh > >> > >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Schultz > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hey Vladimir, > >>> > >>> > >>> > Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional > DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use > additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin > specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular > deployment > approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks > (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. > > > >>> Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library > >>> distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate > >>> that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path > >>> than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place > >>> that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the > >>> package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed > >>> work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for > >>> the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and > >>> customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about > >>> packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't > >>> have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the > >>> fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar > >>> to weigh in on this idea. Currently pl
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
I support this proposal but I just wanted to mention that we'll lose an easy way to develop manifests. I agree that manifests in this case have no difference with Neutron code, for instance. But anyway I +1 this, especially with Vova Kuklin's additions. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 12:25 PM, Vladimir Kuklin wrote: > Folks > > I have a strong +1 for the proposal to decouple master node and slave > nodes. > Here are the stregnths of this approach > 1) We can always decide which particular node runs which particular set of > manifests. This will allow us to do be able to apply/roll back changes > node-by-node. This is very important from operations perspective. > 2) We can decouple master and slave nodes manifests and not drag new > library version onto the master node when it is not needed. This allows us > to decrease probability of regressions > 3) This makes life easier for the user - you just run 'apt-get/yum > install' instead of some difficult to digest `mco` command. > > The only weakness that I see here is on mentioned by Andrey. I think we > can fix it by providing developers with clean and simple way of building > library package on the fly. This will make developers life easier enough to > work with proposed approach. > > Also, we need to provide ways for better UX, like provide one button/api > call for: > > 1) update all manifests on particular nodes (e.g. all or only a part of > nodes of the cluster) to particular version > 2) revert all manifests back to the version which is provided by the > particular GA release > 3) > > So far I would mark need for simple package-building system for developer > as a dependency for the proposed change, but I do not see any other way > than proceeding with it. > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk < > sgolovat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Oleg, >> >> Alex gave a perfect example regarding support folks when they need to fix >> something really quick. It's client's choice what to patch or not. You may >> like it or not, but it's client's choice. >> >> On 10 Sep 2015, at 09:33, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: >> >> Alex, >> >> I absolutely understand the point you are making about need for >> deployment engineers to modify things 'on the fly' in customer environment. >> It's makes things really flexible and lowers the entry barrier for sure. >> >> However, I would like to note that in my opinion this kind on 'monkey >> patching' is actually a bad practice for any environments other than dev >> ones. It immediately leads to emergence of unsupportable frankenclouds. I >> would greet any modification to the workflow that will discourage people >> from doing that. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Oleg Gelbukh >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Schultz >> wrote: >> >>> Hey Vladimir, >>> >>> >>> Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. >>> Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library >>> distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate >>> that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path >>> than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place >>> that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the >>> package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed >>> work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for >>> the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and >>> customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about >>> packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't >>> have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the >>> fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar >>> to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I >>> don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So >>> without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. >>> >>> Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong w
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Folks I have a strong +1 for the proposal to decouple master node and slave nodes. Here are the stregnths of this approach 1) We can always decide which particular node runs which particular set of manifests. This will allow us to do be able to apply/roll back changes node-by-node. This is very important from operations perspective. 2) We can decouple master and slave nodes manifests and not drag new library version onto the master node when it is not needed. This allows us to decrease probability of regressions 3) This makes life easier for the user - you just run 'apt-get/yum install' instead of some difficult to digest `mco` command. The only weakness that I see here is on mentioned by Andrey. I think we can fix it by providing developers with clean and simple way of building library package on the fly. This will make developers life easier enough to work with proposed approach. Also, we need to provide ways for better UX, like provide one button/api call for: 1) update all manifests on particular nodes (e.g. all or only a part of nodes of the cluster) to particular version 2) revert all manifests back to the version which is provided by the particular GA release 3) So far I would mark need for simple package-building system for developer as a dependency for the proposed change, but I do not see any other way than proceeding with it. On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 11:50 AM, Sergii Golovatiuk < sgolovat...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Oleg, > > Alex gave a perfect example regarding support folks when they need to fix > something really quick. It's client's choice what to patch or not. You may > like it or not, but it's client's choice. > > On 10 Sep 2015, at 09:33, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: > > Alex, > > I absolutely understand the point you are making about need for deployment > engineers to modify things 'on the fly' in customer environment. It's makes > things really flexible and lowers the entry barrier for sure. > > However, I would like to note that in my opinion this kind on 'monkey > patching' is actually a bad practice for any environments other than dev > ones. It immediately leads to emergence of unsupportable frankenclouds. I > would greet any modification to the workflow that will discourage people > from doing that. > > -- > Best regards, > Oleg Gelbukh > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Schultz > wrote: > >> Hey Vladimir, >> >> >> >>> Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional >>> DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use >>> additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin >>> specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment >>> approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks >>> (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. >>> >>> >> Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library >> distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate >> that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path >> than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place >> that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the >> package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed >> work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for >> the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and >> customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about >> packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't >> have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the >> fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar >> to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I >> don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So >> without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. >> >> >>> Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet >>> modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages >>> installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather >>> than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain >>> rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have >>> convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you >>> need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be >>> available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with >>> building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we >>> install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else >>> like nova, mysql, etc.? >>> >>> >> Yes, we do have a service like Perestroika to build packages for us. >> That doesn't mean everyone else does or has access to do that today. >> Setting up a build system is a major undertaking and making that a hard >> requirement to interact wit
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Oleg, Alex gave a perfect example regarding support folks when they need to fix something really quick. It's client's choice what to patch or not. You may like it or not, but it's client's choice. On 10 Sep 2015, at 09:33, Oleg Gelbukh wrote: Alex, I absolutely understand the point you are making about need for deployment engineers to modify things 'on the fly' in customer environment. It's makes things really flexible and lowers the entry barrier for sure. However, I would like to note that in my opinion this kind on 'monkey patching' is actually a bad practice for any environments other than dev ones. It immediately leads to emergence of unsupportable frankenclouds. I would greet any modification to the workflow that will discourage people from doing that. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > Hey Vladimir, > > > >> Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional >> DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use >> additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin >> specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment >> approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks >> (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. >> >> > Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library > distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate > that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path > than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place > that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the > package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed > work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for > the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and > customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about > packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't > have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the > fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar > to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I > don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So > without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. > > >> Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet >> modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages >> installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather >> than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain >> rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have >> convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you >> need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be >> available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with >> building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we >> install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else >> like nova, mysql, etc.? >> >> > Yes, we do have a service like Perestroika to build packages for us. That > doesn't mean everyone else does or has access to do that today. Setting up > a build system is a major undertaking and making that a hard requirement to > interact with our product may be a bit much for some customers. In > speaking with some support folks, there are times when files have to be > munged to get around issues because there is no package or things are on > fire so they can't wait for a package to become available for a fix. We > need to be careful not to impose limits without proper justification and > due diligence. We already build the fuel-library package, so there's no > reason you couldn't try switching the rsync to install the package if it's > available on a mirror. I just think you're going to run into the issues I > mentioned which need to be solved before we could just mark it done. > > -Alex > > > >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alex Schultz >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just >>> update the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a >>> few issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to >>> properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include >>> puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. >>> Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except >>> the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install >>> actions that are only valid for the master. Another issue is being >>> flexible enough to allow for deployment engineers to make custom changes >>> for a given environment. Unless we can provide an improved process to >>> allow for people to p
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Alex, I absolutely understand the point you are making about need for deployment engineers to modify things 'on the fly' in customer environment. It's makes things really flexible and lowers the entry barrier for sure. However, I would like to note that in my opinion this kind on 'monkey patching' is actually a bad practice for any environments other than dev ones. It immediately leads to emergence of unsupportable frankenclouds. I would greet any modification to the workflow that will discourage people from doing that. -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 5:56 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > Hey Vladimir, > > > >> Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional >> DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use >> additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin >> specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment >> approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks >> (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. >> >> > Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library > distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate > that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path > than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place > that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the > package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed > work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for > the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and > customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about > packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't > have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the > fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar > to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I > don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So > without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. > > >> Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet >> modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages >> installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather >> than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain >> rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have >> convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you >> need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be >> available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with >> building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we >> install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else >> like nova, mysql, etc.? >> >> > Yes, we do have a service like Perestroika to build packages for us. That > doesn't mean everyone else does or has access to do that today. Setting up > a build system is a major undertaking and making that a hard requirement to > interact with our product may be a bit much for some customers. In > speaking with some support folks, there are times when files have to be > munged to get around issues because there is no package or things are on > fire so they can't wait for a package to become available for a fix. We > need to be careful not to impose limits without proper justification and > due diligence. We already build the fuel-library package, so there's no > reason you couldn't try switching the rsync to install the package if it's > available on a mirror. I just think you're going to run into the issues I > mentioned which need to be solved before we could just mark it done. > > -Alex > > > >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alex Schultz >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just >>> update the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a >>> few issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to >>> properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include >>> puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. >>> Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except >>> the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install >>> actions that are only valid for the master. Another issue is being >>> flexible enough to allow for deployment engineers to make custom changes >>> for a given environment. Unless we can provide an improved process to >>> allow for people to provide in place modifications for an environment, we >>> can't do away with the rsync. >>> >>> If we want to go completely down the package route (and we probably >>> should), we need to make sure that all of the other pieces that currently >>> go
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
+1 to Alex & Andrey. Let's just be very careful, and consider all the use cases before making a change. If we can have answers to all the use cases, then we are good to go. Important thing which we need to fix now - is to enable easy UX for making changes to environments after deployments. Like standard configuration management allows you to do. Namely, being able to: a) modify params on settings tab b) modify templates / puppet manifests and apply changes easily to nodes. Now, we can do b) easy and just click Deploy button or run two-three commands [1]. a) requires changes in Nailgun code to allow post-deployment modification of settings (we currently lock settings tab after deployment). If we switch to package installation and this workflow (change to manifests + 2-3 commands to rsync/run puppet on nodes) will become a nightmare - then we'll need to figure out something else. It has to be easy to do development and use Fuel as configuration management tool. [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1385615 On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:01 AM Alex Schultz wrote: > Hey Vladimir, > > > >> Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional >> DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use >> additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin >> specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment >> approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks >> (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. >> >> > Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library > distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate > that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path > than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place > that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the > package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed > work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for > the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and > customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about > packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't > have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the > fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar > to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I > don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So > without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. > > >> Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet >> modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages >> installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather >> than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain >> rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have >> convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you >> need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be >> available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with >> building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we >> install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else >> like nova, mysql, etc.? >> >> > Yes, we do have a service like Perestroika to build packages for us. That > doesn't mean everyone else does or has access to do that today. Setting up > a build system is a major undertaking and making that a hard requirement to > interact with our product may be a bit much for some customers. In > speaking with some support folks, there are times when files have to be > munged to get around issues because there is no package or things are on > fire so they can't wait for a package to become available for a fix. We > need to be careful not to impose limits without proper justification and > due diligence. We already build the fuel-library package, so there's no > reason you couldn't try switching the rsync to install the package if it's > available on a mirror. I just think you're going to run into the issues I > mentioned which need to be solved before we could just mark it done. > > -Alex > > > >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alex Schultz >> wrote: >> >>> I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just >>> update the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a >>> few issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to >>> properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include >>> puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. >>> Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except >>> the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install >>> actions that are only val
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Hey Vladimir, > Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional > DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use > additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin > specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment > approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks > (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. > > Don't get me wrong, I think it would be good to move to a fuel-library distributed via package only. I'm bringing these points up to indicate that there is many other things that live in the fuel library puppet path than just the fuel-library package. The plugin example is just one place that we will need to invest in further design and work to move to the package only distribution. What I don't want is some partially executed work that only works for one type of deployment and creates headaches for the people actually having to use fuel. The deployment engineers and customers who actually perform these actions should be asked about packaging and their comfort level with this type of requirements. I don't have a complete understanding of the all the things supported today by the fuel plugin system so it would be nice to get someone who is more familiar to weigh in on this idea. Currently plugins are only rpms (no debs) and I don't think we are building fuel-library debs at this time either. So without some work on both sides, we cannot move to just packages. > Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet > modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages > installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather > than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain > rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have > convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you > need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be > available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with > building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we > install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else > like nova, mysql, etc.? > > Yes, we do have a service like Perestroika to build packages for us. That doesn't mean everyone else does or has access to do that today. Setting up a build system is a major undertaking and making that a hard requirement to interact with our product may be a bit much for some customers. In speaking with some support folks, there are times when files have to be munged to get around issues because there is no package or things are on fire so they can't wait for a package to become available for a fix. We need to be careful not to impose limits without proper justification and due diligence. We already build the fuel-library package, so there's no reason you couldn't try switching the rsync to install the package if it's available on a mirror. I just think you're going to run into the issues I mentioned which need to be solved before we could just mark it done. -Alex > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alex Schultz > wrote: > >> I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just >> update the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a >> few issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to >> properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include >> puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. >> Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except >> the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install >> actions that are only valid for the master. Another issue is being >> flexible enough to allow for deployment engineers to make custom changes >> for a given environment. Unless we can provide an improved process to >> allow for people to provide in place modifications for an environment, we >> can't do away with the rsync. >> >> If we want to go completely down the package route (and we probably >> should), we need to make sure that all of the other pieces that currently >> go together to make a complete fuel deployment can be updated in the same >> way. >> >> -Alex >> >> __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Andrey, you have highlighted important case. I hope you agree that this case is not a blocker for the proposal. From the developer's point of view packages are awful and we should use raw git repos on every node. It could make developer's life way easier. But from architecture perspective it would be a disaster. Rsync is just another legacy part of our architecture. We had puppet master before. We have rsync now. Let's see what we should use in future and how we can make it convenient for developers. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Andrey Danin wrote: > I disagree from the development point of view. Now I just change manifests > on Fuel node and redeploy cluster to apply that changes. With your proposal > I'll need to build a new package and add it to a repo every time I change > something. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < > vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and >> then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules >> (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a >> flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed >> puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is >> parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task >> could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos >> repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of >> fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade >> stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. >> >> Please give your opinions on this. >> >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 >> >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> __ >> 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 >> >> > > > -- > Andrey Danin > ada...@mirantis.com > skype: gcon.monolake > > __ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Alex, Regarding plugins: plugins are welcome to install specific additional DEB/RPM repos on the master node, or just configure cluster to use additional onl?ne repos, where all necessary packages (including plugin specific puppet manifests) are to be available. Current granular deployment approach makes it easy to append specific pre-deployment tasks (master/slave does not matter). Correct me if I am wrong. Regarding flexibility: having several versioned directories with puppet modules on the master node, having several fuel-libraryX.Y packages installed on the master node makes things "exquisitely convoluted" rather than flexible. Like I said, it is flexible enough to use mcollective, plain rsync, etc. if you really need to do things manually. But we have convenient service (Perestroika) which builds packages in minutes if you need. Moreover, In the nearest future (by 8.0) Perestroika will be available as an application independent from CI. So, what is wrong with building fuel-library package? What if you want to troubleshoot nova (we install it using packages)? Should we also use rsync for everything else like nova, mysql, etc.? Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Alex Schultz wrote: > I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just update > the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a few > issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to > properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include > puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. > Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except > the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install > actions that are only valid for the master. Another issue is being > flexible enough to allow for deployment engineers to make custom changes > for a given environment. Unless we can provide an improved process to > allow for people to provide in place modifications for an environment, we > can't do away with the rsync. > > If we want to go completely down the package route (and we probably > should), we need to make sure that all of the other pieces that currently > go together to make a complete fuel deployment can be updated in the same > way. > > -Alex > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Andrey Danin wrote: > >> I don't think juggling with repos and pull requests is easier than direct >> editing of files on Fuel node. Do we have Perestorika installed on Fuel >> node in 7.0? >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < >> vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Andrey, >>> >>> This change is going to make things even easier. Currently you don't >>> need to build fuel-library package manually, Perestroika is going to do it >>> for you. It builds necessary packages during minutes for every review >>> request and packaging ci even tests it for you. You just need to make >>> necessary changes not on master node but on your MACBOOK using your >>> favorite editor. Then you need to commit this change and send this patch on >>> review. If you want to test this patch manually, you just need to append >>> this CR repo (example is here [1]) to the list of repos you define for your >>> cluster and start deployment. Anyway, you still have rsync, mcollective and >>> other old plain tools to run deployment manually. >>> >>> [1] http://perestroika-repo-tst.infra.mirantis.net/review/CR-221719/ >>> >>> >>> >>> Vladimir Kozhukalov >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Dmitry Pyzhov >>> wrote: >>> Vladimir, thanks for bringing this up. It greatly correlates with the idea of modularity. Everything related to an openstack release should be put in one place and should be managed as a solid bundle on the master node. Package repository is the first solution that comes to the mind and it looks pretty good. Puppet modules, openstack.yaml and maybe even serialisers should be stored in packages in the openstack release repository. And eventually every other piece of our software should get rid of release-specific logic. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node > and then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet > modules (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. > Such a flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we > installed puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment > itself is parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this > pre-deployment task could be nothing more than just installing > fuel-library > package from mos repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several > versions of fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that > compl
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
I agree that we shouldn't need to sync as we should be able to just update the fuel-library package. That being said, I think there might be a few issues with this method. The first issue is with plugins and how to properly handle the distribution of the plugins as they may also include puppet code that needs to be installed on the other nodes for a deployment. Currently I do not believe we install the plugin packages anywhere except the master and when they do get installed there may be some post-install actions that are only valid for the master. Another issue is being flexible enough to allow for deployment engineers to make custom changes for a given environment. Unless we can provide an improved process to allow for people to provide in place modifications for an environment, we can't do away with the rsync. If we want to go completely down the package route (and we probably should), we need to make sure that all of the other pieces that currently go together to make a complete fuel deployment can be updated in the same way. -Alex On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 8:15 AM, Andrey Danin wrote: > I don't think juggling with repos and pull requests is easier than direct > editing of files on Fuel node. Do we have Perestorika installed on Fuel > node in 7.0? > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < > vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Andrey, >> >> This change is going to make things even easier. Currently you don't need >> to build fuel-library package manually, Perestroika is going to do it for >> you. It builds necessary packages during minutes for every review request >> and packaging ci even tests it for you. You just need to make necessary >> changes not on master node but on your MACBOOK using your favorite editor. >> Then you need to commit this change and send this patch on review. If you >> want to test this patch manually, you just need to append this CR repo >> (example is here [1]) to the list of repos you define for your cluster and >> start deployment. Anyway, you still have rsync, mcollective and other old >> plain tools to run deployment manually. >> >> [1] http://perestroika-repo-tst.infra.mirantis.net/review/CR-221719/ >> >> >> >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Dmitry Pyzhov >> wrote: >> >>> Vladimir, >>> >>> thanks for bringing this up. It greatly correlates with the idea of >>> modularity. Everything related to an openstack release should be put in one >>> place and should be managed as a solid bundle on the master node. Package >>> repository is the first solution that comes to the mind and it looks pretty >>> good. Puppet modules, openstack.yaml and maybe even serialisers should be >>> stored in packages in the openstack release repository. And eventually >>> every other piece of our software should get rid of release-specific logic. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < >>> vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. Please give your opinions on this. [1] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 Vladimir Kozhukalov __ 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 >> >> > > > -- > Andrey Danin > ada...@mirantis.com > skype: gcon.monolake > > ___
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
No, Perestroika is not available on the Fuel master node and it is not going to be available in the future. But Perestroika is going to be re-worked so as to make it is possible to used separately from CI. It is gonna be a python application to make package building as easy for a developer/user as possible. Anyway I think this argument that it is easier to develop is not that kind of argument which can prevail when discussing production ready delivery approach. Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 4:15 PM, Andrey Danin wrote: > I don't think juggling with repos and pull requests is easier than direct > editing of files on Fuel node. Do we have Perestorika installed on Fuel > node in 7.0? > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < > vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Andrey, >> >> This change is going to make things even easier. Currently you don't need >> to build fuel-library package manually, Perestroika is going to do it for >> you. It builds necessary packages during minutes for every review request >> and packaging ci even tests it for you. You just need to make necessary >> changes not on master node but on your MACBOOK using your favorite editor. >> Then you need to commit this change and send this patch on review. If you >> want to test this patch manually, you just need to append this CR repo >> (example is here [1]) to the list of repos you define for your cluster and >> start deployment. Anyway, you still have rsync, mcollective and other old >> plain tools to run deployment manually. >> >> [1] http://perestroika-repo-tst.infra.mirantis.net/review/CR-221719/ >> >> >> >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Dmitry Pyzhov >> wrote: >> >>> Vladimir, >>> >>> thanks for bringing this up. It greatly correlates with the idea of >>> modularity. Everything related to an openstack release should be put in one >>> place and should be managed as a solid bundle on the master node. Package >>> repository is the first solution that comes to the mind and it looks pretty >>> good. Puppet modules, openstack.yaml and maybe even serialisers should be >>> stored in packages in the openstack release repository. And eventually >>> every other piece of our software should get rid of release-specific logic. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < >>> vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: >>> Dear colleagues, Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. Please give your opinions on this. [1] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 Vladimir Kozhukalov __ 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 >> >> > > > -- > Andrey Danin > ada...@mirantis.com > skype: gcon.monolake > > __ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
I don't think juggling with repos and pull requests is easier than direct editing of files on Fuel node. Do we have Perestorika installed on Fuel node in 7.0? On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Andrey, > > This change is going to make things even easier. Currently you don't need > to build fuel-library package manually, Perestroika is going to do it for > you. It builds necessary packages during minutes for every review request > and packaging ci even tests it for you. You just need to make necessary > changes not on master node but on your MACBOOK using your favorite editor. > Then you need to commit this change and send this patch on review. If you > want to test this patch manually, you just need to append this CR repo > (example is here [1]) to the list of repos you define for your cluster and > start deployment. Anyway, you still have rsync, mcollective and other old > plain tools to run deployment manually. > > [1] http://perestroika-repo-tst.infra.mirantis.net/review/CR-221719/ > > > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Dmitry Pyzhov > wrote: > >> Vladimir, >> >> thanks for bringing this up. It greatly correlates with the idea of >> modularity. Everything related to an openstack release should be put in one >> place and should be managed as a solid bundle on the master node. Package >> repository is the first solution that comes to the mind and it looks pretty >> good. Puppet modules, openstack.yaml and maybe even serialisers should be >> stored in packages in the openstack release repository. And eventually >> every other piece of our software should get rid of release-specific logic. >> >> On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < >> vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >>> Dear colleagues, >>> >>> Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and >>> then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules >>> (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a >>> flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed >>> puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is >>> parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task >>> could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos >>> repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of >>> fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade >>> stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. >>> >>> Please give your opinions on this. >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 >>> >>> Vladimir Kozhukalov >>> >>> >>> __ >>> 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 > > -- Andrey Danin ada...@mirantis.com skype: gcon.monolake __ 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Andrey, This change is going to make things even easier. Currently you don't need to build fuel-library package manually, Perestroika is going to do it for you. It builds necessary packages during minutes for every review request and packaging ci even tests it for you. You just need to make necessary changes not on master node but on your MACBOOK using your favorite editor. Then you need to commit this change and send this patch on review. If you want to test this patch manually, you just need to append this CR repo (example is here [1]) to the list of repos you define for your cluster and start deployment. Anyway, you still have rsync, mcollective and other old plain tools to run deployment manually. [1] http://perestroika-repo-tst.infra.mirantis.net/review/CR-221719/ Vladimir Kozhukalov On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Dmitry Pyzhov wrote: > Vladimir, > > thanks for bringing this up. It greatly correlates with the idea of > modularity. Everything related to an openstack release should be put in one > place and should be managed as a solid bundle on the master node. Package > repository is the first solution that comes to the mind and it looks pretty > good. Puppet modules, openstack.yaml and maybe even serialisers should be > stored in packages in the openstack release repository. And eventually > every other piece of our software should get rid of release-specific logic. > > On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < > vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > >> Dear colleagues, >> >> Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and >> then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules >> (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a >> flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed >> puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is >> parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task >> could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos >> repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of >> fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade >> stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. >> >> Please give your opinions on this. >> >> >> [1] >> https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 >> >> Vladimir Kozhukalov >> >> __ >> 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Vladimir, thanks for bringing this up. It greatly correlates with the idea of modularity. Everything related to an openstack release should be put in one place and should be managed as a solid bundle on the master node. Package repository is the first solution that comes to the mind and it looks pretty good. Puppet modules, openstack.yaml and maybe even serialisers should be stored in packages in the openstack release repository. And eventually every other piece of our software should get rid of release-specific logic. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and > then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules > (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a > flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed > puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is > parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task > could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos > repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of > fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade > stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. > > Please give your opinions on this. > > > [1] > https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > __ > 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
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
I disagree from the development point of view. Now I just change manifests on Fuel node and redeploy cluster to apply that changes. With your proposal I'll need to build a new package and add it to a repo every time I change something. On Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 11:41 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Dear colleagues, > > Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and > then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules > (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a > flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed > puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is > parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task > could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos > repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of > fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade > stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. > > Please give your opinions on this. > > > [1] > https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > __ > 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 > > -- Andrey Danin ada...@mirantis.com skype: gcon.monolake __ 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-dev] [Fuel] Install fuel-libraryX.Y as a package on slave nodes
Dear colleagues, Currently, we install fuel-libraryX.Y package(s) on the master node and then right before starting actual deployment we rsync [1] puppet modules (one of installed versions) from the master node to slave nodes. Such a flow makes things much more complicated than they could be if we installed puppet modules on slave nodes as rpm/deb packages. Deployment itself is parameterized by repo urls (upstream + mos) and this pre-deployment task could be nothing more than just installing fuel-library package from mos repo defined for a cluster. We would not have several versions of fuel-library on the master node, we would not need that complicated upgrade stuff like we currently have for puppet modules. Please give your opinions on this. [1] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/orchestrator/tasks_serializer.py#L205-L218 Vladimir Kozhukalov __ 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