Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Oleg, Thanks for the feedback. I have the following as a response: 1. This spec is just an excerpt for scoping in the proposed improvement to the 7.0 release plan. If it get’s scope the full specification will go through a standard review process so it will be possible to discuss names along with the rest of details then. 2. It’s already noticed in the spec the status is is generated using an aggregate query like you described so I don’t propose to store it. Storing that data will require sophisticated algorithms to work with it and also will lead to more locks or race conditions in the database. So yes, it’s going to be a method. - romcheg 27 трав. 2015 о 08:19 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, This looks like a great solution to me, and I like your proposal very much. The status of cluster derived directly from statuses of nodes is exactly what I was thinking about. I have to notes to the proposal, and I can copy them to etherpad if you think they deserve it: 1) status name 'operational' seem a bit unclear to me, as it sounds more like something Monitoring should report: it implies that the actual OpenStack environment is operational, which might or might not be a case, and Fuel has no way to tell. I would really prefer if that status name was 'Deployed' or something along those lines. 2) I'm not sure if we need to keep the complex status of the cluster explicitly in 'cluster' table in the format you suggest. This information can be taken directly from 'nodes' table in Nailgun DB. For example, getting it in the second form you propose is as simple as: nailgun= SELECT status,count(status) FROM nodes GROUP BY status; discover|1 ready|5 What do you think about making it a method rather then an element of data model? Or that's exactly the complexity you want to get rid of? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me mailto:m...@romcheg.me wrote: Oleg, Aleksander also proposed a nice proposed a nice solution [1] which is to have a complex status for cluster. That, however, looks like a BP so I’ve created an excerpt [2] for it and we will try to discuss it scope it for 7.0, if there is a consensus. References: 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status - romcheg 22 трав. 2015 о 22:32 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com mailto:ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. via Web UI or CLI). -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me mailto:m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev 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 mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev __
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Thank you Roman for driving this! Full list of nodes statuses is: NODE_STATUSES = Enum( 'ready', 'discover', 'provisioning', 'provisioned', 'deploying', 'error', 'removing', ) We could combine 'provisioning', 'provisioned', 'deploying' into one maybe as cluster has only 'deployment' status for all of that now. It seems to be enough for cluster management. CLUSTER_STATUSES = Enum( 'new', 'deployment', 'stopped', 'operational', 'error', 'remove', 'update', 'update_error' ) [1] https://github.com/stackforge/fuel-web/blob/master/nailgun/nailgun/consts.py Aleksey Kasatkin On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 4:00 PM, Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com wrote: Excellent, nice to know that we're on the same page about this. Thank you! -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Oleg, Thanks for the feedback. I have the following as a response: 1. This spec is just an excerpt for scoping in the proposed improvement to the 7.0 release plan. If it get’s scope the full specification will go through a standard review process so it will be possible to discuss names along with the rest of details then. 2. It’s already noticed in the spec the status is is generated using an aggregate query like you described so I don’t propose to store it. Storing that data will require sophisticated algorithms to work with it and also will lead to more locks or race conditions in the database. So yes, it’s going to be a method. - romcheg 27 трав. 2015 о 08:19 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, This looks like a great solution to me, and I like your proposal very much. The status of cluster derived directly from statuses of nodes is exactly what I was thinking about. I have to notes to the proposal, and I can copy them to etherpad if you think they deserve it: 1) status name 'operational' seem a bit unclear to me, as it sounds more like something Monitoring should report: it implies that the actual OpenStack environment is operational, which might or might not be a case, and Fuel has no way to tell. I would really prefer if that status name was 'Deployed' or something along those lines. 2) I'm not sure if we need to keep the complex status of the cluster explicitly in 'cluster' table in the format you suggest. This information can be taken directly from 'nodes' table in Nailgun DB. For example, getting it in the second form you propose is as simple as: nailgun= SELECT status,count(status) FROM nodes GROUP BY status; discover|1 ready|5 What do you think about making it a method rather then an element of data model? Or that's exactly the complexity you want to get rid of? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Oleg, Aleksander also proposed a nice proposed a nice solution [1] which is to have a complex status for cluster. That, however, looks like a BP so I’ve created an excerpt [2] for it and we will try to discuss it scope it for 7.0, if there is a consensus. References: 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status - romcheg 22 трав. 2015 о 22:32 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. via Web UI or CLI). -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Excellent, nice to know that we're on the same page about this. Thank you! -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Oleg, Thanks for the feedback. I have the following as a response: 1. This spec is just an excerpt for scoping in the proposed improvement to the 7.0 release plan. If it get’s scope the full specification will go through a standard review process so it will be possible to discuss names along with the rest of details then. 2. It’s already noticed in the spec the status is is generated using an aggregate query like you described so I don’t propose to store it. Storing that data will require sophisticated algorithms to work with it and also will lead to more locks or race conditions in the database. So yes, it’s going to be a method. - romcheg 27 трав. 2015 о 08:19 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, This looks like a great solution to me, and I like your proposal very much. The status of cluster derived directly from statuses of nodes is exactly what I was thinking about. I have to notes to the proposal, and I can copy them to etherpad if you think they deserve it: 1) status name 'operational' seem a bit unclear to me, as it sounds more like something Monitoring should report: it implies that the actual OpenStack environment is operational, which might or might not be a case, and Fuel has no way to tell. I would really prefer if that status name was 'Deployed' or something along those lines. 2) I'm not sure if we need to keep the complex status of the cluster explicitly in 'cluster' table in the format you suggest. This information can be taken directly from 'nodes' table in Nailgun DB. For example, getting it in the second form you propose is as simple as: nailgun= SELECT status,count(status) FROM nodes GROUP BY status; discover|1 ready|5 What do you think about making it a method rather then an element of data model? Or that's exactly the complexity you want to get rid of? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Oleg, Aleksander also proposed a nice proposed a nice solution [1] which is to have a complex status for cluster. That, however, looks like a BP so I’ve created an excerpt [2] for it and we will try to discuss it scope it for 7.0, if there is a consensus. References: 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status - romcheg 22 трав. 2015 о 22:32 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. via Web UI or CLI). -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://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://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Roman, This looks like a great solution to me, and I like your proposal very much. The status of cluster derived directly from statuses of nodes is exactly what I was thinking about. I have to notes to the proposal, and I can copy them to etherpad if you think they deserve it: 1) status name 'operational' seem a bit unclear to me, as it sounds more like something Monitoring should report: it implies that the actual OpenStack environment is operational, which might or might not be a case, and Fuel has no way to tell. I would really prefer if that status name was 'Deployed' or something along those lines. 2) I'm not sure if we need to keep the complex status of the cluster explicitly in 'cluster' table in the format you suggest. This information can be taken directly from 'nodes' table in Nailgun DB. For example, getting it in the second form you propose is as simple as: nailgun= SELECT status,count(status) FROM nodes GROUP BY status; discover|1 ready|5 What do you think about making it a method rather then an element of data model? Or that's exactly the complexity you want to get rid of? -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Oleg, Aleksander also proposed a nice proposed a nice solution [1] which is to have a complex status for cluster. That, however, looks like a BP so I’ve created an excerpt [2] for it and we will try to discuss it scope it for 7.0, if there is a consensus. References: 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status - romcheg 22 трав. 2015 о 22:32 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. via Web UI or CLI). -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://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 __ 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] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Aleksey, thank you for your feedback. The first thing I’d like to highlight is that both web ui and the cli use the same Nailgun API to perform the same actions so basically we must not treat the command line client any differently. The idea of having a complex status for environment actually seems to be pretty good one. However, that requires a BP so I’ve created an excerpt [1] which I’d like to share. If this feature is scoped, it will get life of many folks easier since it will allow to discard some sophisticated algorithms. - romcheg 1. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status 25 трав. 2015 о 10:39 Aleksey Kasatkin akasat...@mirantis.com написав(ла): AFAIC, there are several problems (in API) here: 1. We cannot stop/reset particular nodes. 2. Cluster status doesn't address changes which were done via CLI. 3. Cluster status in its current form is not enough to manage cluster (i.e. to determine actions what can be applied to cluster at the moment). It doesn't reflect the fact that some nodes can be in 'provisioned' state, some are in 'provisioning', 'deploying', 'ready' statuses. First two seem clear enough. We could add ability to stop/reset particular nodes and reflect CLI-driven changes in the cluster status. To address the last point my proposal was (bug/1449086/comments/7 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086/comments/7) to break status into several binary states, i.e. binaries: 'new', 'deployment', 'ready', etc., each of which is set to true when cluster has at least one node in corresponding status (I united 'provisioning', 'provisioned' and 'deploying' into one as it is done now). Now it looks more reasonable to me to keep the original status as is and add bitwise one mentioned above (to address states of different nodes) because 'error' state is determinative for cluster (when cluster is in 'error' state it is no matter that some nodes are in 'ready' state). So, cluster is in 'new' state when all nodes are in 'discover' state, it is in 'operational' state when all nodes are in 'ready' state, cluster is in 'deployment' state when not all of its nodes are in 'discover' or 'ready' state but there are no nodes in 'error' and 'removing' states. New bitwise status is actual in 'deployment' state of cluster. It gives to UI/CLI sufficient data to determine what actions can be applied to cluster at the moment. I've combined some of the states combinations into the table: 'new' flag 'deployment' flag 'ready' flag description, actions allowed false false false There are no nodes in cluster or all nodes are in 'error'/'removing' state. Cluster is in 'new'/'error'/'remove' state here so we don't care about these flags. false true false All nodes are under provisioning/deployment. Deployment can be stopped. true true false Part of nodes is in 'discover' state, remaining part is under provisioning/deployment. Deployment can be started for the first part or/and stopped for the second part of nodes. true false true Part of nodes is in 'discover' state, remaining part is in 'ready' state. Deployment can be started for the first part and second part can be reset. true true true We have some nodes in every of the states: 'discover', provisioning/deployment, 'ready'. So, we can allow different actions for nodes in different states. false true true Part of nodes is under provisioning/deployment, remaining part is in 'ready' state. Deployment can be stopped for the first part and second part can be reset. I didn't show another 2 combinations here as they aren't related to 'deployment' state of cluster (as well as the first one in the table). Also, we should be careful with the order of nodes deployment/reset. I'm not sure whether it is written in our docs that cluster may be non-functional if user tries to deploy nodes in the wrong order (e.g. computes first). We could show some warnings about that. Same applies to selective reset if we will implement it. Aleksey Kasatkin On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me mailto:m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this
Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Oleg, Aleksander also proposed a nice proposed a nice solution [1] which is to have a complex status for cluster. That, however, looks like a BP so I’ve created an excerpt [2] for it and we will try to discuss it scope it for 7.0, if there is a consensus. References: 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status - romcheg 22 трав. 2015 о 22:32 Oleg Gelbukh ogelb...@mirantis.com написав(ла): Roman, I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. via Web UI or CLI). -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me mailto:m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev 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 signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ 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] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
AFAIC, there are several problems (in API) here: 1. We cannot stop/reset particular nodes. 2. Cluster status doesn't address changes which were done via CLI. 3. Cluster status in its current form is not enough to manage cluster (i.e. to determine actions what can be applied to cluster at the moment). It doesn't reflect the fact that some nodes can be in 'provisioned' state, some are in 'provisioning', 'deploying', 'ready' statuses. First two seem clear enough. We could add ability to stop/reset particular nodes and reflect CLI-driven changes in the cluster status. To address the last point my proposal was (bug/1449086/comments/7 https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086/comments/7) to break status into several binary states, i.e. binaries: 'new', 'deployment', 'ready', etc., each of which is set to true when cluster has at least one node in corresponding status (I united 'provisioning', 'provisioned' and 'deploying' into one as it is done now). Now it looks more reasonable to me to keep the original status as is and add bitwise one mentioned above (to address states of different nodes) because 'error' state is determinative for cluster (when cluster is in 'error' state it is no matter that some nodes are in 'ready' state). So, cluster is in 'new' state when all nodes are in 'discover' state, it is in 'operational' state when all nodes are in 'ready' state, cluster is in 'deployment' state when not all of its nodes are in 'discover' or 'ready' state but there are no nodes in 'error' and 'removing' states. New bitwise status is actual in 'deployment' state of cluster. It gives to UI/CLI sufficient data to determine what actions can be applied to cluster at the moment. I've combined some of the states combinations into the table: 'new' flag 'deployment' flag 'ready' flag description, actions allowed false false false There are no nodes in cluster or all nodes are in 'error'/'removing' state. Cluster is in 'new'/'error'/'remove' state here so we don't care about these flags. false true false All nodes are under provisioning/deployment. Deployment can be stopped. true true false Part of nodes is in 'discover' state, remaining part is under provisioning/deployment. Deployment can be started for the first part or/and stopped for the second part of nodes. true false true Part of nodes is in 'discover' state, remaining part is in 'ready' state. Deployment can be started for the first part and second part can be reset. true true true We have some nodes in every of the states: 'discover', provisioning/deployment, 'ready'. So, we can allow different actions for nodes in different states. false true true Part of nodes is under provisioning/deployment, remaining part is in 'ready' state. Deployment can be stopped for the first part and second part can be reset. I didn't show another 2 combinations here as they aren't related to 'deployment' state of cluster (as well as the first one in the table). Also, we should be careful with the order of nodes deployment/reset. I'm not sure whether it is written in our docs that cluster may be non-functional if user tries to deploy nodes in the wrong order (e.g. computes first). We could show some warnings about that. Same applies to selective reset if we will implement it. Aleksey Kasatkin On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ 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-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ 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] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Roman, I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. via Web UI or CLI). -- Best regards, Oleg Gelbukh On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ 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-dev] [Fuel] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail __ 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] Setting cluster status when provisioning a node
OpenStack operator should be provided with an option to just provision nodes. We want to provide flexibility for sophisticated users, and I consider this as normal use case. So I disagree that we should treat provisioning as just developers feature. For newbies / simplest clouds, we want to keep the easiest way of installation possible, i.e. just Deploy button. We can claim that we've succeeded with this once 6-year kid is able to deploy OpenStack with Fuel. On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Roman Prykhodchenko m...@romcheg.me wrote: Hi folks! Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using the command line client. The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even while some of the node are been provisioned. The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 - romcheg __ 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 -- Mike Scherbakov #mihgen __ 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
