Open Stack

Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2017-06-08 18:27:51 +0200:
> On 08/06/17 18:23 +0200, Flavio Percoco wrote:
> >On 07/06/17 12:04 +0200, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote:
> >>On 06.06.2017 18:08, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> >>>Another benefit is that confd will generate a configuration file when
> >>>the application will start. So if etcd is down *after* the app
> >>>startup, it shouldn't break the service restart if we don't ask confd
> >>>to re-generate the config. It's good for operators who were concerned
> >>>about the fact the infrastructure would rely on etcd. In that case, we
> >>>would only need etcd at the initial deployment (and during lifecycle
> >>>actions like upgrades, etc).
> >>>
> >>>The downside is that in the case of containers, they would still have
> >>>a configuration file within the container, and the whole goal of this
> >>>feature was to externalize configuration data and stop having
> >>>configuration files.
> >>
> >>It doesn't look a strict requirement. Those configs may (and should) be
> >>bind-mounted into containers, as hostpath volumes. Or, am I missing
> >>something what *does* make embedded configs a strict requirement?..
> >
> >mmh, one thing I liked about this effort was possibility of stop bind-mounting
> >config files into the containers. I'd rather find a way to not need any
> >bindmount and have the services get their configs themselves.
> 
> Probably sent too early!
> 
> If we're not talking about OpenStack containers running in a COE, I guess this
> is fine. For k8s based deployments, I think I'd prefer having installers
> creating configmaps directly and use that. The reason is that depending on files
> that are in the host is not ideal for these scenarios. I hate this idea because
> it makes deployments inconsistent and I don't want that.
> 
> Flavio
> 

I'm not sure I understand how a configmap is any different from what is
proposed with confd in terms of deployment-specific data being added to
a container before it launches. Can you elaborate on that?

Doug