Open Stack

On 18/07/2018 22:36, Michele Baldessari wrote:
[...]
> Besides E), I think a reasonable use case is to be able to have a small
> all-in-one installation that mimicks a more "real-world" overcloud.
> I think there is a bit of value in that, as long as the code to make it
> happen is not horribly huge and complex (and I was under the impression
> from Emilien's patchset that this is not the case)
[...]

Small question aside related to all-in-one: we're talking about use
cases in which we might want to go from 1 to 3 controllers, but how this
can become a thing? I always thought to all-in-one as a developer/ci
"tool", so why we should care about giving the possibility to expand?

This question is related also to the main topic of this thread: it was
proposed to replace Keepalived with anything (instead of Pacemaker), and
one of the outcomes was that this approach would not guarantee some of
the goals, like undercloud HA and keeping 1:1 structure between
undercloud and overcloud. But what else are we supposed to control with
Pacemaker on the undercloud apart from the IPs?

-- 
Raoul Scarazzini
rasca at redhat.com