Open Stack

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsmola at redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2014 4:29 AM
> To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer
> 
> Hi Neal, thanks for response.
> 
> So I would see it as UNDERCLOUD_USE_UI (TripleO UI can be placed only to
> Undercloud)
> 
> And for overcloud: OVERCLOUD_USE_UI and
> OVERCLOUD_USE_CEILOMETER, cause in
> overcloud users might not want UI, but only data for billing. Does it
> sound reasonable?

Yep, agreed that UI/metering are different use cases. Will work OVERCLOUD_USE_CEILOMETER use case into changes first, then address UI later if someone else hasn't picked it up.

- Phil
> 
> On 04/22/2014 06:23 PM, Neal, Phil wrote:
> >> From: Ladislav Smola [mailto:lsmola at redhat.com]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2014 8:37 AM
> >> To: openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO] [Tuskar] Undercloud Ceilometer
> >>
> >> No response so far, but -1 on the image element for making Ceilometer
> >> optional.
> > Sorry for the delayed response, Ladislov. It turns out that the mailing list
> was filtering out these TripleO mails for me.
> >
> > Let me add a little context to that -1: given that a TripleO user may not want
> to enable a UI layer at the undercloud level (there's a use case for using the
> undercloud solely for spinning up the overcloud), I think we want to support
> as small a footprint as possible.
> >
> >> OK, so what about having variable in devtest_variables: USE_TRIPLEO_UI.
> >>
> > I like this approach better...in fact I will look into adding something similar
> into the changes I'm making to enable Ceilometer by default in the overcloud
> control node: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/89625/1
> >
> >> It would add Undercloud Ceilometer, Tuskar-UI and Horizon. And
> Overcloud
> >> SNMPd.
> >>
> >> Defaulted to USE_TRIPLEO_UI=1 so we have UI stuff in CI.
> >>
> >> How does it sound?
> >>
> > Perhaps specify something like "UNDERCLOUD_USE_TRIPLEO_UI" to be
> more specific on where this will be deployed.
> >> On 04/14/2014 01:31 PM, Ladislav Smola wrote:
> >>> Hello,
> >>>
> >>> I am planning to add Ceilometer to Undercloud as default. Since
> >>> Tuskar-UI uses
> >>> it as primary source of metering samples and Tuskar should be in
> >>> Undercloud
> >>> as default, it made sense to me.
> >>>
> >>> So is my assumption correct or there are some reasons not to do this?
> >>>
> >>> Here are the reviews, that are adding working Undercloud Ceilometer:
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86915/
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/86917/  (depends on the template
> >> change)
> >>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/87215/
> >>>
> >>> Configuration for automatic obtaining of stats from all Overcloud
> >>> nodes via.
> >>> SNMP will follow soon.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>> Ladislav
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> >> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> > _______________________________________________
> > OpenStack-dev mailing list
> > OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev