Open Stack

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:48:51AM -0400, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:42 AM Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> > The biggest downside IMO is the fact that our Pacemaker integration is
> > not containerized. Nor are there any plans to finish the
> > containerization of it. Pacemaker has to currently run on baremetal
> > and this makes the installation of it for small dev/test setups a lot
> > less desirable. It can launch containers just fine but the pacemaker
> > installation itself is what concerns me for the long term.
> >
> > Until we have plans for containizing it I suppose I would rather see
> > us keep keepalived as an option for these smaller setups. We can
> > certainly change our default Undercloud to use Pacemaker (if we choose
> > to do so). But having keepalived around for "lightweight" (zero or low
> > footprint) installs that work is really quite desirable.
> >
> 
> That's a good point, and I agree with your proposal.
> Michele, what's the long term plan regarding containerized pacemaker?

Well, we kind of started evaluating it (there was definitely not enough
time around pike/queens as we were busy landing the bundles code), then
due to discussions around k8s it kind of got off our radar. We can
at least resume the discussions around it and see how much effort it
would be. I'll bring it up with my team and get back to you.

cheers,
Michele
-- 
Michele Baldessari            <michele at acksyn.org>
C2A5 9DA3 9961 4FFB E01B  D0BC DDD4 DCCB 7515 5C6D