[openstack-dev] [tripleo] How to selectively enable new services?
dprince at redhat.com
Thu Oct 1 17:34:46 UTC 2015
On Wed, 2015-09-30 at 21:05 +0100, Steven Hardy wrote:
> Hi all,
> So I wanted to start some discussion on $subject, because atm we have
> couple of patches adding support for new services (which is great!):
> Manila: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188137/
> Sahara: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/220863/
> So, firstly I am *not* aiming to be any impediment to those landing,
> and I
> know they have been in-progress for some time. These look pretty
> close to
> being ready to land and overall I think new service integration is a
> good thing for TripleO.
> However, given the recent evolution towards the "big tent" of
> OpenStack, I
> wanted to get some ideas on what an effective way to selectively
> services would look like, as I can imagine not all users of TripleO
> want to
> deploy all-the-services all of the time.
> I was initially thinking we simply have e.g "EnableSahara" as a
> boolean in
> overcloud-without-mergepy, and wire that in to the puppet manifests,
> that the services are not configured/started. However comments in
> Sahara patch indicate it may be more complex than that, in particular
> requiring changes to the loadbalancer puppet code and os-cloud
> This is all part of the more general "composable roles" problem, but
> there an initial step we can take, which will make it easy to simply
> disable services (and ideally not pay the cost of configuring them at
> on deployment?
> Interested in peoples thoughts on this - has anyone already looked
> into it,
> or is there any existing pattern we can reuse?
A couple of ideas I would throw out that might help us pair down the
larger controller role into more composable roles.
On the Heat side we could individual role templates directly. So new
nested stack templates for Sahara and Manilla (or any service really).
These templates would still wire into the controller.yaml in much the
same way... but we would compose the resulting configuration metadata
based on what was configured in the resource registry. So if Sahara or
Manilla is set to a noop resource we would essentially get a controller
without those service. If it is enabled then we would pull in the extra
configuration metadata (hiera) and wire it into the structured config
as normal. Perhaps a new 'roles' directory would help organize these
services... The mechanism for composability on the Heat side is really
the resource registry so we need to be careful to name and document
these things correctly.
On the Puppet side the initial goal was to avoid creating what we
called a composition layer, which is basically a new set of puppet
modules that act as a front end for all of your roles etc. This isn't
to say that we don't want composability with the Puppet (we do) but
just that our preference was to write role manifests that used direct
include statements to OpenStack Puppet modules. This proved to be a
more hackable set of templates and forces us to use (as much as
possible) OpenStack puppet or add functionality there rather than go
and write our own puppet-tripleo to rule the world.
In practice that didn't fully work out and we do have a small bit of
Puppet code in puppet-tripleo. I consider much of this to be technical
debt and over the mid to long term would prefer to refactor and add the
puppet-tripleo bits elsewhere.
One area we could improve our puppet architecture might be with regards
to how we actually deploy the puppet manifests themselves. Currently we
deploy the manifests with Heat directly by using get_file to deploy the
manifest alongside of the SoftwareConfig (looks something like this htt
-templates/tree/puppet/compute-post.yaml#n23). This works really nicely
in that our puppet manifests can live alongside of the (lightly)
coupled Heat templates which pass in parameters via Hiera. However the
approach is limited in that we can only deploy a single manifest (not a
directory of roles that could be dynamically assembled or included on
the fly). Perhaps we could expand this capability a bit so that we
could structure the puppet a bit more freely into decomposed role
manifests. We already have a similar thing going on w/ the Hiera
element where we can deploy multiple Hiera files for each role. So
perhaps a script step to deploy multiple puppet files (generic so it
could be used in multiple templates), or perhaps we could use Swift to
deploy these alongside of Heat (I'm not sure we have the required
OS::Swift heat resources for this ATM though).
Again we've already got mechanisms to compose puppet Hiera, we just
need a few more tricks to more easily compose the role manifests
> As mentioned above, not aiming to block anything on this, I guess we
> figure it out and retro-fit it to whatever services folks want to
> selectively disable later if needed.
Agree with not blocking the Manilla and Sahara integration. I don't see
anything with regards to those that would prevent future refactoring to
make the roles more composable.
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubs
More information about the OpenStack-dev