[openstack-dev] [tripleo] Stein blueprint - Plan to remove Keepalived support (replaced by Pacemaker)
bdobreli at redhat.com
Mon Jul 16 12:50:49 UTC 2018
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
On 7/16/18 12:49 PM, Sergii Golovatiuk wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 9:11 PM, Juan Antonio Osorio
> <jaosorior at gmail.com> 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, <emilien at redhat.com> wrote:
>>> We have been supporting both Keepalived and Pacemaker to handle VIP
> This is really good initiative which supports the main idea of 'simplicity'.
>>> 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
>>> I see some benefits at removing support for keepalived and deploying
>>> Pacemaker by default:
>>> - pacemaker can be deployed on one node (we actually do it in CI), so can
>>> be deployed on the undercloud to handle VIPs and manage HA as well.
> Additionally, undercloud services may be done HA on 3 nodes if/when
> it's really required.
>>> - it'll allow to extend undercloud & standalone use cases to support
>>> multinode one day, with HA and SSL, like we already have on the overcloud.
>>> - it removes the complexity of managing two tools so we'll potentially
>>> removing code in TripleO.
>>> - of course since pacemaker features from overcloud would be usable in
>>> standalone environment, but also on the undercloud.
> The same OCF scripts will be used for undercloud and overcloud.
>>> There is probably some downside, the first one is I think Keepalived is
>>> much more lightweight than Pacemaker, we probably need to run some benchmark
>>> here and make sure we don't make the undercloud heavier than it is now.
> From other perspective operator need to learn/support 2 tools.
>>> I went ahead and created this blueprint for Stein:
>>> I also plan to prototype some basic code soon and provide an upgrade path
>>> if we accept this blueprint.
> I would like to participate in this initiative as I found it very valuable.
>>> This is something I would like to discuss here and at the PTG, feel free
>>> to bring questions/concerns,
>>> Emilien Macchi
>>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev