[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Tuskar] Terminology
jason.dobies at redhat.com
Wed Dec 11 19:54:48 UTC 2013
So glad we're hashing this out now. This will save a bunch of headaches
in the future. Good call pushing this forward.
On 12/11/2013 02:15 PM, Tzu-Mainn Chen wrote:
> I'm trying to clarify the terminology being used for Tuskar, which may be helpful so that we're sure
> that we're all talking about the same thing :) I'm copying responses from the requirements thread
> and combining them with current requirements to try and create a unified view. Hopefully, we can come
> to a reasonably rapid consensus on any desired changes; once that's done, the requirements can be
> * 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.
Do we ever need to distinguish between undercloud and overcloud nodes?
> * REGISTRATION - the act of creating a node in Ironic
DISCOVERY - The act of having nodes found auto-magically and added to
Ironic with minimal user intervention.
> * ROLE - a specific workload we want to map onto one or more nodes. Examples include 'undercloud control plane', 'overcloud control
> plane', 'overcloud storage', 'overcloud compute' etc.
> * MANAGEMENT NODE - a node that has been mapped with an undercloud role
> * SERVICE NODE - a node that has been mapped with an overcloud role
> * COMPUTE NODE - a service node that has been mapped to an overcloud compute role
> * CONTROLLER NODE - a service node that has been mapped to an overcloud controller role
> * OBJECT STORAGE NODE - a service node that has been mapped to an overcloud object storage role
> * BLOCK STORAGE NODE - a service node that has been mapped to an overcloud block storage role
> * UNDEPLOYED NODE - a node that has not been mapped with a role
> * another option - UNALLOCATED NODE - a node that has not been allocated through nova scheduler (?)
> - (after reading lifeless's explanation, I agree that "allocation" may be a
> misleading term under TripleO, so I personally vote for UNDEPLOYED)
Undeployed still sounds a bit odd to me when paired with the word role.
I could see deploying a workload "bundle" or something, but a role
doesn't feel like a tangible thing that is pushed out somewhere.
Unassigned? As in, it hasn't been assigned a role yet.
> * INSTANCE - A role deployed on a node - this is where work actually happens.
I'm fine with "instance", but the the phrasing "a role deployed on a
node" feels odd to me in the same way "undeployed" does. Maybe a slight
change to "A node that has been assigned a role", but that also may be
me being entirely too nit-picky.
To put it in context, on a scale of 1-10, my objection to this and
"undeployed" is around a 2, so don't let me come off as strenuously
> * DEPLOYMENT
> * SIZE THE ROLES - the act of deciding how many nodes will need to be assigned to each role
> * another option - DISTRIBUTE NODES (?)
> - (I think the former is more accurate, but perhaps there's a better way to say it?)
> * SCHEDULING - the process of deciding which role is deployed on which node
I know this derives from a Nova term, but to me, the idea of
"scheduling" carries a time-in-the-future connotation to it. The
interesting part of what goes on here is the assignment of which roles
go to which instances.
> * SERVICE CLASS - a further categorization within a service role for a particular deployment.
I don't understand this one, can you add a few examples?
> * NODE PROFILE - a set of requirements that specify what attributes a node must have in order to be mapped to
> a service class
Even without knowing what "service class" is, I like this one. :)
> Does this seem accurate? All feedback is appreciated!
Thanks again :D
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
More information about the OpenStack-dev