Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On 19 May 2016 5:38 pm, "Paul Belanger" wrote: > > On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 03:50:15PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > > On 18 May 2016 at 13:34, Paul Belanger wrote: > > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > > >> On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: > > >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > > >> >> Hi all, > > >> >> > > >> >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > > >> >> provided for some other projects. > > >> >> > > >> >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > > >> >> subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is > > >> >> an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > > >> >> highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks > > >> >> are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > > >> >> different perspectives :) > > >> >> > > >> >> TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > > >> >> > > >> >> - > > >> >> Upgrades - current status and roadmap > > >> >> - > > >> >> > > >> >> In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > > >> >> support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > > >> >> implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > > >> >> with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > > >> >> > > >> >> The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > > >> >> definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, > > >> >> and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > > >> >> architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > > >> >> > > >> >> We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows > > >> >> was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat > > >> >> to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > > >> >> workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > > >> >> the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > > >> >> the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > > >> >> investigated and prototyped. > > >> >> > > >> >> We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades > > >> >> job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades > > >> >> (not just commit to commit). > > >> >> > > >> >> --- > > >> >> Containerization status/roadmap > > >> >> --- > > >> >> > > >> >> In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > > >> >> (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers > > >> >> via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > > >> >> what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO > > >> >> deployment. > > >> >> > > >> >> Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > > >> >> significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration > > >> >> between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > > >> >> (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > > >> >> supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is > > >> >> mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > > >> >> > > >> >> Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - > > >> >> there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > > >> >> defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > > >> >> feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > > >> >> supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces > > >> >> in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > > >> >> > > >> >> - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > > >> >> primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > > >> >> by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" > > >> >> model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration tool. > > >> >> > > >> >> - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > > >> >> schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > > >> >> parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > > >> >> this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, > > >> >> so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to > > >> >> consume. > > >> >> > > >> >> We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on > > >> >> the Ko
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 03:50:15PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 18 May 2016 at 13:34, Paul Belanger wrote: > > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > >> On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: > >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > >> >> Hi all, > >> >> > >> >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > >> >> provided for some other projects. > >> >> > >> >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > >> >> subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows > >> >> is > >> >> an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > >> >> highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, > >> >> folks > >> >> are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > >> >> different perspectives :) > >> >> > >> >> TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > >> >> > >> >> - > >> >> Upgrades - current status and roadmap > >> >> - > >> >> > >> >> In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > >> >> support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > >> >> implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and > >> >> inflexible > >> >> with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > >> >> > >> >> The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > >> >> definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services > >> >> format, > >> >> and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > >> >> architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > >> >> > >> >> We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade > >> >> workflows > >> >> was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with > >> >> Heat > >> >> to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > >> >> workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > >> >> the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside > >> >> of > >> >> the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > >> >> investigated and prototyped. > >> >> > >> >> We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an > >> >> upgrades > >> >> job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release > >> >> upgrades > >> >> (not just commit to commit). > >> >> > >> >> --- > >> >> Containerization status/roadmap > >> >> --- > >> >> > >> >> In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > >> >> (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys > >> >> containers > >> >> via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), > >> >> and > >> >> what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized > >> >> TripleO > >> >> deployment. > >> >> > >> >> Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > >> >> significant focus on where work may happen such that further > >> >> collaboration > >> >> between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on > >> >> where > >> >> (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion > >> >> on > >> >> supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows > >> >> is > >> >> mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > >> >> > >> >> Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and > >> >> TripleO - > >> >> there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > >> >> defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > >> >> feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > >> >> supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator > >> >> interfaces > >> >> in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > >> >> > >> >> - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > >> >> primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema > >> >> exposed > >> >> by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split > >> >> stack" > >> >> model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration > >> >> tool. > >> >> > >> >> - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat > >> >> parameter > >> >> schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > >> >> parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > >> >> this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP > >> >> API, > >> >> so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) > >> >> UI to > >> >> consume. > >> >> > >> >> We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic > >> >> on > >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 08:34:40AM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > > On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: > > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > > >> provided for some other projects. > > >> > > >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > > >> subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows > > >> is > > >> an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > > >> highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, > > >> folks > > >> are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > > >> different perspectives :) > > >> > > >> TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > > >> > > >> - > > >> Upgrades - current status and roadmap > > >> - > > >> > > >> In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > > >> support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > > >> implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > > >> with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > > >> > > >> The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > > >> definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services > > >> format, > > >> and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > > >> architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > > >> > > >> We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade > > >> workflows > > >> was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with > > >> Heat > > >> to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > > >> workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > > >> the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > > >> the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > > >> investigated and prototyped. > > >> > > >> We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an > > >> upgrades > > >> job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release > > >> upgrades > > >> (not just commit to commit). > > >> > > >> --- > > >> Containerization status/roadmap > > >> --- > > >> > > >> In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > > >> (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys > > >> containers > > >> via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > > >> what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized > > >> TripleO > > >> deployment. > > >> > > >> Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > > >> significant focus on where work may happen such that further > > >> collaboration > > >> between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > > >> (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > > >> supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows > > >> is > > >> mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > > >> > > >> Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO > > >> - > > >> there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > > >> defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > > >> feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > > >> supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator > > >> interfaces > > >> in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > > >> > > >> - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > > >> primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > > >> by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split > > >> stack" > > >> model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration > > >> tool. > > >> > > >> - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > > >> schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > > >> parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > > >> this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP > > >> API, > > >> so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI > > >> to > > >> consume. > > >> > > >> We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic > > >> on > > >> the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond > > >> that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further > > >> discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: > > >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On 18 May 2016 at 13:34, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: >> On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: >> > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been >> >> provided for some other projects. >> >> >> >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via >> >> subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is >> >> an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions >> >> highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks >> >> are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or >> >> different perspectives :) >> >> >> >> TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: >> >> >> >> - >> >> Upgrades - current status and roadmap >> >> - >> >> >> >> In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial >> >> support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the >> >> implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible >> >> with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. >> >> >> >> The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular >> >> definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, >> >> and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA >> >> architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. >> >> >> >> We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade >> >> workflows >> >> was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with >> >> Heat >> >> to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral >> >> workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using >> >> the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of >> >> the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further >> >> investigated and prototyped. >> >> >> >> We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades >> >> job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release >> >> upgrades >> >> (not just commit to commit). >> >> >> >> --- >> >> Containerization status/roadmap >> >> --- >> >> >> >> In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO >> >> (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys >> >> containers >> >> via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and >> >> what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO >> >> deployment. >> >> >> >> Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was >> >> significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration >> >> between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where >> >> (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on >> >> supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is >> >> mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: >> >> >> >> Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - >> >> there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images >> >> defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can >> >> feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow >> >> supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator >> >> interfaces >> >> in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: >> >> >> >> - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the >> >> primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed >> >> by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split >> >> stack" >> >> model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration >> >> tool. >> >> >> >> - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter >> >> schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary >> >> parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable >> >> this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, >> >> so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI >> >> to >> >> consume. >> >> >> >> We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on >> >> the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond >> >> that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further >> >> discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: >> >> >> >> - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, >> >> and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for >> >> generating service c
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:22:55PM +0100, Derek Higgins wrote: > On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > >> provided for some other projects. > >> > >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > >> subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is > >> an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > >> highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks > >> are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > >> different perspectives :) > >> > >> TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > >> > >> - > >> Upgrades - current status and roadmap > >> - > >> > >> In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > >> support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > >> implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > >> with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > >> > >> The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > >> definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, > >> and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > >> architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > >> > >> We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows > >> was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat > >> to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > >> workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > >> the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > >> the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > >> investigated and prototyped. > >> > >> We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades > >> job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades > >> (not just commit to commit). > >> > >> --- > >> Containerization status/roadmap > >> --- > >> > >> In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > >> (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers > >> via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > >> what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO > >> deployment. > >> > >> Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > >> significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration > >> between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > >> (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > >> supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is > >> mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > >> > >> Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - > >> there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > >> defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > >> feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > >> supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces > >> in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > >> > >> - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > >> primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > >> by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" > >> model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration > >> tool. > >> > >> - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > >> schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > >> parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > >> this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, > >> so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to > >> consume. > >> > >> We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on > >> the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond > >> that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further > >> discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: > >> > >> - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, > >> and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for > >> generating service configuration (so that existing operator integrations > >> via puppet continue to function) - this is a barrier to directly > >> consuming the kolla-kubernetes effort directly. > >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On 6 May 2016 at 14:18, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been >> provided for some other projects. >> >> I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via >> subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is >> an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions >> highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks >> are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or >> different perspectives :) >> >> TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: >> >> - >> Upgrades - current status and roadmap >> - >> >> In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial >> support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the >> implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible >> with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. >> >> The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular >> definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, >> and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA >> architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. >> >> We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows >> was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat >> to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral >> workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using >> the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of >> the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further >> investigated and prototyped. >> >> We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades >> job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades >> (not just commit to commit). >> >> --- >> Containerization status/roadmap >> --- >> >> In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO >> (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers >> via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and >> what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO >> deployment. >> >> Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was >> significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration >> between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where >> (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on >> supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is >> mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: >> >> Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - >> there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images >> defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can >> feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow >> supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces >> in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: >> >> - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the >> primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed >> by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" >> model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration tool. >> >> - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter >> schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary >> parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable >> this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, >> so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to >> consume. >> >> We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on >> the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond >> that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further >> discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: >> >> - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, >> and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for >> generating service configuration (so that existing operator integrations >> via puppet continue to function) - this is a barrier to directly >> consuming the kolla-kubernetes effort directly. >> >> - A COE layer like kubernetes is a poor fit for deployments where operators >> require strict control of service placement (e.g exactly which nodes a >> service >> runs on, IP address assignments to specific nodes etc) - this is already >>
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 04:50:19PM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:18:03AM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > > > provided for some other projects. > > > > > > I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > > > subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is > > > an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > > > highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks > > > are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > > > different perspectives :) > > > > > > TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > > > > > > - > > > Upgrades - current status and roadmap > > > - > > > > > > In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > > > support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > > > implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > > > with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > > > > > > The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > > > definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, > > > and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > > > architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > > > > > > We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade > > > workflows > > > was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with > > > Heat > > > to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > > > workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > > > the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > > > the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > > > investigated and prototyped. > > > > > > We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades > > > job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release > > > upgrades > > > (not just commit to commit). > > > > > > --- > > > Containerization status/roadmap > > > --- > > > > > > In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > > > (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys > > > containers > > > via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > > > what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO > > > deployment. > > > > > > Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > > > significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration > > > between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > > > (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > > > supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is > > > mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > > > > > > Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - > > > there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > > > defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > > > feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > > > supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator > > > interfaces > > > in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > > > > > > - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > > > primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > > > by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split > > > stack" > > > model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration > > > tool. > > > > > > - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > > > schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > > > parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > > > this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, > > > so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI > > > to > > > consume. > > > > > > We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on > > > the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond > > > that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further > > > discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: > > > > > > - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, > > > and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for > > > generating service configuration (so t
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 09:18:03AM -0400, Paul Belanger wrote: > On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > > provided for some other projects. > > > > I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > > subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is > > an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > > highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks > > are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > > different perspectives :) > > > > TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > > > > - > > Upgrades - current status and roadmap > > - > > > > In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > > support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > > implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > > with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > > > > The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > > definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, > > and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > > architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > > > > We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows > > was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat > > to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > > workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > > the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > > the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > > investigated and prototyped. > > > > We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades > > job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades > > (not just commit to commit). > > > > --- > > Containerization status/roadmap > > --- > > > > In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > > (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers > > via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > > what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO > > deployment. > > > > Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > > significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration > > between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > > (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > > supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is > > mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > > > > Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - > > there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > > defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > > feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > > supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces > > in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > > > > - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > > primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > > by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" > > model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration > > tool. > > > > - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > > schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > > parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > > this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, > > so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to > > consume. > > > > We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on > > the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond > > that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further > > discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: > > > > - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, > > and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for > > generating service configuration (so that existing operator integrations > > via puppet continue to function) - this is a barrier to directly > > consuming the kolla-kubernetes effort directly. > > > > - A COE layer like kubernetes is a poor fit for deployments where operators > > require strict control of service p
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On Tue, May 03, 2016 at 05:34:55PM +0100, Steven Hardy wrote: > Hi all, > > Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > provided for some other projects. > > I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is > an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks > are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > different perspectives :) > > TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > > - > Upgrades - current status and roadmap > - > > In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > > The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, > and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > > We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows > was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat > to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > investigated and prototyped. > > We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades > job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades > (not just commit to commit). > > --- > Containerization status/roadmap > --- > > In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers > via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO > deployment. > > Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration > between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is > mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > > Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - > there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces > in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > > - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" > model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration tool. > > - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, > so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to > consume. > > We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on > the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond > that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further > discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: > > - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, > and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for > generating service configuration (so that existing operator integrations > via puppet continue to function) - this is a barrier to directly > consuming the kolla-kubernetes effort directly. > > - A COE layer like kubernetes is a poor fit for deployments where operators > require strict control of service placement (e.g exactly which nodes a > service > runs on, IP address assignments to specific nodes etc) - this is already > a strong requirement for TripleO users and we need to figure out if/how > it's possible to control container placement
Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
Thanks a ton, Steve! I have to admit, although I was at the summit in person, I can get out of your write-up a lot more than from the sessions itself. (Probably because of a mixture of not being a native speaker and being new to tripleO.) Cheers, Sven __ 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] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
On 05/03/2016 10:34 AM, Steven Hardy wrote: > Hi all, > > Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been > provided for some other projects. > > I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via > subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is > an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions > highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks > are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or > different perspectives :) > > TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: > > - > Upgrades - current status and roadmap > - > > In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial > support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the > implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible > with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. > > The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular > definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, > and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA > architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. > > We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows > was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat > to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral > workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using > the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of > the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further > investigated and prototyped. > > We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades > job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades > (not just commit to commit). > > --- > Containerization status/roadmap > --- > > In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO > (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers > via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and > what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO > deployment. > > Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was > significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration > between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where > (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on > supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is > mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: > > Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - > there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images > defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can > feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow > supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces > in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: > > - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the > primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed > by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" > model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration tool. > > - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter > schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary > parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable > this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, > so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to > consume. > > We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on > the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond > that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further > discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: > > - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, > and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for > generating service configuration (so that existing operator integrations > via puppet continue to function) - this is a barrier to directly > consuming the kolla-kubernetes effort directly. > > - A COE layer like kubernetes is a poor fit for deployments where operators > require strict control of service placement (e.g exactly which nodes a > service > runs on, IP address assignments to specific nodes etc) - this is already > a strong requirement for TripleO users and we need to figure out if/how > it's possible to control container placement per node/namespace. > > - There ar
[openstack-dev] [TripleO] Austin summit - session recap/summary
Hi all, Some folks have requested a summary of our summit sessions, as has been provided for some other projects. I'll probably go into more detail on some of these topics either via subsequent more focussed threads an/or some blog posts but what follows is an overview of our summit sessions[1] with notable actions or decisions highlighted. I'm including some of my own thoughts and conclusions, folks are welcome/encouraged to follow up with their own clarifications or different perspectives :) TripleO had a total of 5 sessions in Austin I'll cover them one-by-one: - Upgrades - current status and roadmap - In this session we discussed the current state of upgrades - initial support for full major version upgrades has been implemented, but the implementation is monolithic, highly coupled to pacemaker, and inflexible with regard to third-party extraconfig changes. The main outcomes were that we will add support for more granular definition of the upgrade lifecycle to the new composable services format, and that we will explore moving towards the proposed lightweight HA architecture to reduce the need for so much pacemaker specific logic. We also agreed that investigating use of mistral to drive upgrade workflows was a good idea - currently we have a mixture of scripts combined with Heat to drive the upgrade process, and some refactoring into discrete mistral workflows may provide a more maintainable solution. Potential for using the existing SoftwareDeployment approach directly via mistral (outside of the heat templates) was also discussed as something to be further investigated and prototyped. We also touched on the CI implications of upgrades - we've got an upgrades job now, but we need to ensure coverage of full release-to-release upgrades (not just commit to commit). --- Containerization status/roadmap --- In this session we discussed the current status of containers in TripleO (which is to say, the container based compute node which deploys containers via Heat onto an an Atomic host node that is also deployed via Heat), and what strategy is most appropriate to achieve a fully containerized TripleO deployment. Several folks from Kolla participated in the session, and there was significant focus on where work may happen such that further collaboration between communities is possible. To some extent this discussion on where (as opposed to how) proved a distraction and prevented much discussion on supportable architectural implementation for TripleO, thus what follows is mostly my perspective on the issues that exist: Significant uncertainty exists wrt integration between Kolla and TripleO - there's largely consensus that we want to consume the container images defined by the Kolla community, but much less agreement that we can feasably switch to the ansible-orchestrated deployment/config flow supported by Kolla without breaking many of our primary operator interfaces in a fundamentally unacceptable way, for example: - The Mistral based API is being implemented on the expectation that the primary interface to TripleO deployments is a parameters schema exposed by a series of Heat templates - this is no longer true in a "split stack" model where we have to hand off to an alternate service orchestration tool. - The tripleo-ui (based on the Mistral based API) consumes heat parameter schema to build it's UI, and Ansible doesn't support the necessary parameter schema definition (such as types and descriptions) to enable this pattern to be replicated. Ansible also doesn't provide a HTTP API, so we'd still have to maintain and API surface for the (non python) UI to consume. We also discussed ideas around integration with kubernetes (a hot topic on the Kolla track this summit), but again this proved inconclusive beyond that yes someone should try developing a PoC to stimulate further discussion. Again, significant challenges exist: - We still need to maintain the Heat parameter interfaces for the API/UI, and there is also a strong preference to maintain puppet as a tool for generating service configuration (so that existing operator integrations via puppet continue to function) - this is a barrier to directly consuming the kolla-kubernetes effort directly. - A COE layer like kubernetes is a poor fit for deployments where operators require strict control of service placement (e.g exactly which nodes a service runs on, IP address assignments to specific nodes etc) - this is already a strong requirement for TripleO users and we need to figure out if/how it's possible to control container placement per node/namespace. - There are several uncertainties regarding the HA architecture, such as how do we achieve fencing for nodes (which is currently provided via pacemaker), in particular the HA model for real production deployments via kube