[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
Hi, In parallel to Jarda's updated wireframes, and based on various discussions over the past weeks, here are the updated Tuskar requirements for Icehouse: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TuskarIcehouseRequirements Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Tzu-Mainn Chen

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2014-02-05 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2014/05/02 15:27, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: Hi, In parallel to Jarda's updated wireframes, and based on various discussions over the past weeks, here are the updated Tuskar requirements for Icehouse: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/TuskarIcehouseRequirements Any feedback is

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-19 Thread Radomir Dopieralski
On 11/12/13 21:42, Robert Collins wrote: On 12 December 2013 01:17, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/10/12 23:09, Robert Collins wrote: [snip] Thats speculation. We don't know if they will or will not because we haven't given them a working system to test. Some part of that

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-18 Thread Will Foster
On 13/12/13 09:41 -0500, Jay Dobies wrote: * ability to 'preview' changes going to the scheduler What does this give you? How detailed a preview do you need? What information is critical there? Have you seen the proposed designs for a heat template preview feature - would that be sufficient?

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-16 Thread Will Foster
On 13/12/13 19:06 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: On 13 December 2013 06:24, Will Foster wfos...@redhat.com wrote: I just wanted to add a few thoughts: Thank you! For some comparative information here from the field I work extensively on deployments of large OpenStack implementations, most

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-13 Thread Jay Dobies
* ability to 'preview' changes going to the scheduler What does this give you? How detailed a preview do you need? What information is critical there? Have you seen the proposed designs for a heat template preview feature - would that be sufficient? Will will probably have a better answer to

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-13 Thread Matt Wagner
On Mon Dec 9 15:22:04 2013, Robert Collins wrote: On 9 December 2013 23:56, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: Ironic today will want IPMI address + MAC for each NIC + disk/cpu/memory stats For registration it is just Management MAC address which is needed right? Or does Ironic need

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-12 Thread Keith Basil
On Dec 10, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 11 December 2013 05:42, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/09/12 23:38, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: The disagreement comes from whether we need manual node assignment or not. I would argue that we need to step back and take a look

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-12 Thread Keith Basil
On Dec 11, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On 12 December 2013 01:17, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/10/12 23:09, Robert Collins wrote: The 'easiest' way is to support bigger companies with huge deployments, tailored infrastructure, everything connected properly.

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-12 Thread Will Foster
On 12/12/13 09:42 +1300, Robert Collins wrote: On 12 December 2013 01:17, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/10/12 23:09, Robert Collins wrote: The 'easiest' way is to support bigger companies with huge deployments, tailored infrastructure, everything connected properly. But

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-12 Thread Keith Basil
On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Jay Dobies wrote: Maybe this is a valid use case? Cloud operator has several core service nodes of differing configuration types. [node1] -- balanced mix of disk/cpu/ram for general core services [node2] -- lots of disks for Ceilometer data storage [node3]

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-12 Thread Jay Dobies
On 12/12/2013 04:25 PM, Keith Basil wrote: On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:05 PM, Jay Dobies wrote: Maybe this is a valid use case? Cloud operator has several core service nodes of differing configuration types. [node1] -- balanced mix of disk/cpu/ram for general core services [node2] -- lots of

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-11 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/10/12 23:09, Robert Collins wrote: On 11 December 2013 05:42, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/09/12 23:38, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: The disagreement comes from whether we need manual node assignment or not. I would argue that we need to step back and take a look at the

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-11 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/10/12 19:39, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: Ideally, we don't. But with this approach we would take out the possibility to change something or decide something from the user. The 'easiest' way is to support bigger companies with huge deployments, tailored infrastructure, everything connected

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-11 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
On 2013/10/12 19:39, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: Ideally, we don't. But with this approach we would take out the possibility to change something or decide something from the user. The 'easiest' way is to support bigger companies with huge deployments, tailored infrastructure, everything

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-10 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/09/12 17:15, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to be able to unallocate a node from a deployment. Why? Whats her motivation. One plausible one for me is 'a machine needs to be serviced so Anna wants to remove it from the

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-10 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/09/12 21:22, Robert Collins wrote: Ironic today will want IPMI address + MAC for each NIC + disk/cpu/memory stats For registration it is just Management MAC address which is needed right? Or does Ironic need also IP? I think that MAC address might be enough, we can display IP in

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-10 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/09/12 23:38, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: Thanks for the explanation! I'm going to claim that the thread revolves around two main areas of disagreement. Then I'm going to propose a way through: a) Manual Node Assignment I think that everyone is agreed that automated node assignment through

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-10 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
Thanks for the reply! Comments in-line: The disagreement comes from whether we need manual node assignment or not. I would argue that we need to step back and take a look at the real use case: heterogeneous nodes. If there are literally no characteristics that differentiate nodes A

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-10 Thread Jay Dobies
Thanks for the explanation! I'm going to claim that the thread revolves around two main areas of disagreement. Then I'm going to propose a way through: a) Manual Node Assignment I think that everyone is agreed that automated node assignment through nova-scheduler is by far the most ideal

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-10 Thread Robert Collins
On 11 December 2013 05:42, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/09/12 23:38, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: The disagreement comes from whether we need manual node assignment or not. I would argue that we need to step back and take a look at the real use case: heterogeneous nodes. If

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jay Dobies
On 12/06/2013 09:39 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: Thanks for the comments and questions! I fully expect that this list of requirements will need to be fleshed out, refined, and heavily modified, so the more the merrier. Comments inline: *** Requirements are assumed to be targeted for

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread mar...@redhat.com
On 09/12/13 18:01, Jay Dobies wrote: I believe we are still 'fighting' here with two approaches and I believe we need both. We can't only provide a way 'give us resources we will do a magic'. Yes this is preferred way - especially for large deployments, but we also need a fallback so that user

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
- As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to be able to unallocate a node from a deployment. Why? Whats her motivation. One plausible one for me is 'a machine needs to be serviced so Anna wants to remove it from the deployment to avoid causing user visible downtime.' So

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Robert Collins
On 9 December 2013 23:56, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/07/12 01:59, Robert Collins wrote: * Creation * Manual registration * hardware specs from Ironic based on mac address (M) Ironic today will want IPMI address + MAC for each NIC + disk/cpu/memory

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
* created as part of undercloud install process * can create additional management nodes (F) * Resource nodes ^ nodes is again confusing layers - nodes are what things are deployed to, but they aren't the entry point Can you, please be a

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Robert Collins
On 10 December 2013 09:55, Tzu-Mainn Chen tzuma...@redhat.com wrote: * created as part of undercloud install process By that note I meant, that Nodes are not resources, Resource instances run on Nodes. Nodes are the generic pool of hardware we can deploy things onto. I don't think

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jay Dobies
So the question is are we looking at /nodes/ that have a /current role/, or are we looking at /roles/ that have some /current nodes/. My contention is that the role is the interesting thing, and the nodes is the incidental thing. That is, as a sysadmin, my hierarchy of concerns is something

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Robert Collins
On 10 December 2013 10:57, Jay Dobies jason.dob...@redhat.com wrote: So we have: - node - a physical general purpose machine capable of running in many roles. Some nodes may have hardware layout that is particularly useful for a given role. - role - a specific workload we want to map

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
Thanks for the explanation! I'm going to claim that the thread revolves around two main areas of disagreement. Then I'm going to propose a way through: a) Manual Node Assignment I think that everyone is agreed that automated node assignment through nova-scheduler is by far the most ideal

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/06/12 21:26, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: * can be allocated as one of four node types It's pretty clear by the current verbiage but I'm going to ask anyway: one and only one? Yep, that's right! Confirming. One and only one. My gut reaction is that we want to bite this off sooner rather

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/06/12 22:55, Matt Wagner wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to review the distribution of the nodes that she has assigned before kicking off the Deploy task. What does she expect to see here on the review screen that she didn't see on the previous screens, if

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/07/12 02:20, Robert Collins wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna needs to assign a role to each of the necessary nodes in her OpenStack deployment. The nodes could be either controller, compute, networking, or storage resources depending on the needs of this deployment.

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jaromir Coufal
On 2013/07/12 01:59, Robert Collins wrote: * Creation * Manual registration * hardware specs from Ironic based on mac address (M) Ironic today will want IPMI address + MAC for each NIC + disk/cpu/memory stats For registration it is just Management MAC address which is

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Imre Farkas
On 12/09/2013 11:56 AM, Jaromir Coufal wrote: On 2013/07/12 01:59, Robert Collins wrote: * Monitoring * assignment, availability, status * capacity, historical statistics (M) Why is this under 'nodes'? I challenge the idea that it should be there. We will need to surface

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread James Slagle
Mainn, Thanks for pulling this together. * NODES * Management node (where triple-o is installed) * created as part of undercloud install process I think getting the undercloud installed/deployed should be a requirement for Icehouse. I'm not sure if you meant that or were assuming

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread James Slagle
On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Matt Wagner matt.wag...@redhat.com wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna expects that the management node for the deployment services is already up and running and the status of this node is shown in the UI. The 'management node' here is the

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Liz Blanchard
On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:29 AM, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/06/12 22:55, Matt Wagner wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna wants to review the distribution of the nodes that she has assigned before kicking off the Deploy task. What does she expect to see here

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Liz Blanchard
On Dec 9, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Jaromir Coufal jcou...@redhat.com wrote: On 2013/07/12 02:20, Robert Collins wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna needs to assign a role to each of the necessary nodes in her OpenStack deployment. The nodes could be either controller, compute,

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread mar...@redhat.com
On 06/12/13 04:31, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote: Hey all, I've attempted to spin out the requirements behind Jarda's excellent wireframes (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/020944.html). Hopefully this can add some perspective on both the wireframes and the needed

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Liz Blanchard
On Dec 9, 2013, at 8:58 AM, James Slagle james.sla...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Matt Wagner matt.wag...@redhat.com wrote: - As an infrastructure administrator, Anna expects that the management node for the deployment services is already up and running and the status of

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Liz Blanchard
On Dec 6, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Robert Collins robe...@robertcollins.net wrote: On 7 December 2013 09:31, Liz Blanchard lsure...@redhat.com wrote: This list is great, thanks very much for taking the time to write this up! I think a big part of the User Experience design is to take a step back

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-09 Thread Jay Dobies
I believe we are still 'fighting' here with two approaches and I believe we need both. We can't only provide a way 'give us resources we will do a magic'. Yes this is preferred way - especially for large deployments, but we also need a fallback so that user can say - no, this node doesn't belong

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Jay Dobies
Disclaimer: I'm very new to the project, so apologies if some of my questions have been already answered or flat out don't make sense. As I proofread, some of my comments may drift a bit past basic requirements, so feel free to tell me to take certain questions out of this thread into

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
Thanks for the comments! Responses inline: Disclaimer: I'm very new to the project, so apologies if some of my questions have been already answered or flat out don't make sense. As I proofread, some of my comments may drift a bit past basic requirements, so feel free to tell me to take

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Liz Blanchard
On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:31 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen tzuma...@redhat.com wrote: Hey all, I've attempted to spin out the requirements behind Jarda's excellent wireframes (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/020944.html). Hopefully this can add some perspective on both

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
That looks really good, thanks for putting that together! I'm going to put together a wiki page that consolidates the various Tuskar planning documents - requirements, user stories, wireframes, etc - so it's easier to see the whole planning picture. Mainn - Original Message - On Dec

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Matt Wagner
Thanks, Liz! Seeing things this way is really helpful. (I actually feel like wireframes - requirements - user stories is exactly the opposite of how this normally goes, but hitting all of the steps either way makes things much clearer.) I've raised some questions below. I think many of them

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
The relevant wiki page is here: https://wiki.openstack.org/wiki/TripleO/Tuskar#Icehouse_Planning - Original Message - That looks really good, thanks for putting that together! I'm going to put together a wiki page that consolidates the various Tuskar planning documents -

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Robert Collins
On 7 December 2013 09:31, Liz Blanchard lsure...@redhat.com wrote: This list is great, thanks very much for taking the time to write this up! I think a big part of the User Experience design is to take a step back and understand the requirements from an end user's point of view…what would

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Robert Collins
On 7 December 2013 10:55, Matt Wagner matt.wag...@redhat.com wrote: The 'management node' here is the undercloud node that Anna is interacting with, as I understand it. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong.) So it's not a bad idea to show its status, but I guess the mere fact that she's using it

Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-06 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
Thanks for the comments and questions! I fully expect that this list of requirements will need to be fleshed out, refined, and heavily modified, so the more the merrier. Comments inline: *** Requirements are assumed to be targeted for Icehouse, unless marked otherwise: (M) - Maybe

[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Icehouse Requirements

2013-12-05 Thread Tzu-Mainn Chen
Hey all, I've attempted to spin out the requirements behind Jarda's excellent wireframes (http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2013-December/020944.html). Hopefully this can add some perspective on both the wireframes and the needed changes to the tuskar-api. All comments are