FYI. We are going to disable Multi-node mode on UI even in experimental
mode. And we will remove related code from nailgun in 7.0.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1428054
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Aleksandr Didenko adide...@mirantis.com
wrote:
What do you guys think about switching
Do you mean single node?
On 15 Apr 2015, at 17:04, Dmitry Pyzhov dpyz...@mirantis.com wrote:
FYI. We are going to disable Multi-node mode on UI even in experimental mode.
And we will remove related code from nailgun in 7.0.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1428054
On Fri, Jan 30,
Tomasz, multi-node mode is a legacy non-HA mode with only 1
controller. Currently, our so-called HA mode support deployment with 1
controller, so it makes no sense to support both modes.
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 6:38 PM, Tomasz Napierala
tnapier...@mirantis.com wrote:
Do you mean single node?
Sorry, I just mixed the names ;)
On 15 Apr 2015, at 18:25, Igor Kalnitsky ikalnit...@mirantis.com wrote:
Tomasz, multi-node mode is a legacy non-HA mode with only 1
controller. Currently, our so-called HA mode support deployment with 1
controller, so it makes no sense to support both modes.
What do you guys think about switching CentOS CI job [1] to HA with single
controller (1 controller + 1 or 2 computes)? Just to verify that our
replacement of Simple mode works fine.
[1]
https://fuel-jenkins.mirantis.com/job/master.fuel-library.centos.ha_nova_vlan/
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:54
Thanks Igor for the quick turn over, excellent!
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Igor Belikov ibeli...@mirantis.com wrote:
Folks,
Changes in CI jobs have been made, for master branch of fuel-library we
are running CentOS HA + Nova VLAN and Ubuntu HA + Neutron VLAN .
Job naming schema has
Mike,
Any objections / additional suggestions?
no objections from me, and it's already covered by LP 1415116 bug [1]
[1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/+bug/1415116
On Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Mike Scherbakov mscherba...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Folks,
one of the things we should not
Folks,
Changes in CI jobs have been made, for master branch of fuel-library we are
running CentOS HA + Nova VLAN and Ubuntu HA + Neutron VLAN .
Job naming schema has also been changed, so now it includes actual testgroup.
Current links for master branch CI jobs are [1] and [2], all other jobs
+1 to replace simple to HA with one controller
/sv
__
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
Folks,
one of the things we should not forget about - is out Fuel CI gating
jobs/tests. [1], [2].
One of them is actually runs simple mode. Unfortunately, I don't see
details about tests ran for [1], [2], but I'm pretty sure it's same set as
[3], [4].
I suggest to change tests. First of all, we
+1
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Aleksandr Didenko adide...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi,
After starting implementing granular deployment we've faced a bunch of
issues that would make further development of this feature much more
complicated if we have to support both Simple and HA deployment
not to prolong single mode, I'd like to see it die. However we will
need to be able to add, change, remove, or noop portions of the tasks
graph in the future. Many of the plugins that cant currently be built
would rely on being able to sub out parts of the graph. How is that
going to factor into
not to prolong single mode, I'd like to see it die. However we will
need to be able to add, change, remove, or noop portions of the tasks
graph in the future. Many of the plugins that cant currently be built
would rely on being able to sub out parts of the graph. How is that
going to factor
+1
--
Best regards,
Sergii Golovatiuk,
Skype #golserge
IRC #holser
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin sbogat...@mirantis.com
wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Aleksandr Didenko adide...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi,
After starting implementing granular deployment
+1 to simple mode removal
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Stanislaw Bogatkin sbogat...@mirantis.com
wrote:
+1
On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Aleksandr Didenko adide...@mirantis.com
wrote:
Hi,
After starting implementing granular deployment we've faced a bunch of
issues that would
Hi,
After starting implementing granular deployment we've faced a bunch of
issues that would make further development of this feature much more
complicated if we have to support both Simple and HA deployment modes. For
example: simple mode does not require cluster (corosync, pacemaker, vips,
+1, long awaited
On 27 Jan 2015, at 14:05, Aleksandr Didenko adide...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi,
After starting implementing granular deployment we've faced a bunch of issues
that would make further development of this feature much more complicated if
we have to support both Simple and
Definitely fuel spec is needed :)
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Evgeniy L e...@mirantis.com wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I have some comments regarding to you action items
2) Removing simple mode from the ui and tests
3) Removing simple mode support from nailgun (maybe we leave it) and cli
We
Thanks, Andrew.
I think it's worth to track as a normal feature with formal fuel-specs, as
it touches too many things (docs and a number of tests). Should be short
spec though.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Andrew Woodward xar...@gmail.com wrote:
Started a new thread so that we don't
Hi Andrew,
I have some comments regarding to you action items
2) Removing simple mode from the ui and tests
3) Removing simple mode support from nailgun (maybe we leave it) and cli
We shouldn't do it, because nailgun should handle both versions of cluster.
What we have to do here is to use
20 matches
Mail list logo