On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 6:02 AM Raoul Scarazzini wrote:
[...]
> Small question aside related to all-in-one: we're talking about use
> cases in which we might want to go from 1 to 3 controllers, but how this
> can become a thing? I always thought to all-in-one as a developer/ci
> "tool", so why
On 18/07/2018 22:36, Michele Baldessari wrote:
[...]
> Besides E), I think a reasonable use case is to be able to have a small
> all-in-one installation that mimicks a more "real-world" overcloud.
> I think there is a bit of value in that, as long as the code to make it
> happen is not horribly
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:07:04AM -0400, Dan Prince wrote:
> On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 22:00 +0200, Michele Baldessari wrote:
> > Hi Jarda,
> >
> > thanks for these perspectives, this is very valuable!
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:01:21PM +0200, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
> > > Not rooting for any
Thanks everyone for this useful feedback (I guess it helps a lot to discuss
before the PTG, so we don't even need to spend too much time on this topic).
1) Everyone agrees that undercloud HA isn't something we target now,
therefore we won't switch to Pacemaker by default.
2) Pacemaker would still
On Tue, 2018-07-17 at 22:00 +0200, Michele Baldessari wrote:
> Hi Jarda,
>
> thanks for these perspectives, this is very valuable!
>
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:01:21PM +0200, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
> > Not rooting for any approach here, just want to add a bit of
> > factors which might play a
On 07/17/2018 03:00 PM, Michele Baldessari wrote:
Hi Jarda,
thanks for these perspectives, this is very valuable!
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:01:21PM +0200, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
Not rooting for any approach here, just want to add a bit of factors which
might play a role when deciding which
Hi Jarda,
thanks for these perspectives, this is very valuable!
On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 06:01:21PM +0200, Jaromir Coufal wrote:
> Not rooting for any approach here, just want to add a bit of factors which
> might play a role when deciding which way to go:
>
> A) Performance matters, we should
Not rooting for any approach here, just want to add a bit of factors which
might play a role when deciding which way to go:
A) Performance matters, we should be improving simplicity and speed of
deployments rather than making it heavier. If the deployment time and resource
consumption is not
Thanks everyone for the feedback, I've made a quick PoC:
https://review.openstack.org/#/q/topic:bp/undercloud-pacemaker-default
And I'm currently doing local testing. I'll publish results when progress
is made, but I've made it so we have the choice to enable pacemaker
(disabled by default),
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:48:51AM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:42 AM Dan Prince wrote:
> [...]
>
> > The biggest downside IMO is the fact that our Pacemaker integration is
> > not containerized. Nor are there any plans to finish the
> > containerization of it.
On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:42 AM Dan Prince wrote:
[...]
> The biggest downside IMO is the fact that our Pacemaker integration is
> not containerized. Nor are there any plans to finish the
> containerization of it. Pacemaker has to currently run on baremetal
> and this makes the installation of
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 2:34 PM Emilien Macchi wrote:
>
> Greetings,
>
> We have been supporting both Keepalived and Pacemaker to handle VIP
> management.
> Keepalived is actually the tool used by the undercloud when SSL is enabled
> (for SSL termination).
> While Pacemaker is used on the
Hi Emilien,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 02:33:02PM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> We have been supporting both Keepalived and Pacemaker to handle VIP
> management. Keepalived is actually the tool used by the undercloud
> when SSL is enabled (for SSL termination). While Pacemaker is used on
> the
I'm all for it!
Another benefit is better coverage for the standalone CI job(s), when it
will (hopefully) become a mandatory dependency for overcloud multinode
jobs.
On 7/16/18 12:49 PM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Juan Antonio Osorio
wrote:
Sounds good
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Juan Antonio Osorio
wrote:
> Sounds good to me. Even if pacemaker is heavier, less options and
> consistency is better.
>
> Greetings from Mexico :D
Greetings from Poznań :D
>
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 13:33 Emilien Macchi, wrote:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> We
Sounds good to me. Even if pacemaker is heavier, less options and
consistency is better.
Greetings from Mexico :D
On Fri, 13 Jul 2018, 13:33 Emilien Macchi, wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> We have been supporting both Keepalived and Pacemaker to handle VIP
> management.
> Keepalived is actually the
Greetings,
We have been supporting both Keepalived and Pacemaker to handle VIP
management.
Keepalived is actually the tool used by the undercloud when SSL is enabled
(for SSL termination).
While Pacemaker is used on the overcloud to handle VIPs but also services
HA.
I see some benefits at
17 matches
Mail list logo
