Open Stack

Hello,

I agree with Matjaz order of priority. I would also like to add one more
spec to the osbash scripts but we could keep this in the wishlist.
#9: Adding color to echo statements in osbash scripts to make it more
readable.

Cheers,
Sayali.




On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Roger Luethi <rl at patchworkscience.org>
wrote:

> We have scripts that implement the openstack-manuals install-guide to
> install a training-cluster that can be used for training (and validates
> the install-guide in the process).
>
> As of now, the scripts install Icehouse in Ubuntu VMs (on Linux, Mac OS
> X, and Windows hosts). The list of larger lab-scripts tasks discussed
> for Kilo looks roughly like this (holler if I forgot something):
>
> 1) close the remaining gap between install-guides and lab-scripts for
>    Icehouse
> 2) branch and update scripts for Juno
> 3) branch and update scripts for Kilo
> 4) create a (presumably all-in-one) VM image that can run on top of
>    OpenStack
> 5) improve experience/flexibility on Windows hosts
> 6) add KVM back end on Linux (in addition to VirtualBox)
> 7) port host-side code to Python
> 8) installation on VMs running distros other than Ubuntu
>
> We had a pretty much universal agreement that 1) is a requirement for a
> meaningful discussion about collaboration between install-guides and
> lab-scripts; work on it has already started.
>
> Skipping 2) and going for 3) directly is a possibility, but it may not
> save us all that much time.
>
> Everyone seems to agree that it would be nice to have 4), but it would
> also be nice to know that additional, actual use will offset the required
> development resources (especially considering that it may have to be
> a rather unappealing all-in-one VM rather than a three-node cluster).
>
> With regards to 5), feedback from the field would (or hopefully will)
> help us decide whether there is sufficient interest to continue and
> improve support for Windows hosts. Ditto for 8).
>
> On Linux, the choice of VirtualBox as the lab-scripts back end
> reportedly hinders adoption among developers because KVM is more
> popular there. In addition, 6) would also give us better performance
> (e.g., nested virtualization with hardware support). Obviously,
> adding a second virtualization back end will require some surgery on
> the host-side scripts. It might make sense to plan for that when/if
> we port the host-side code to Python [7)] which may not happen in Kilo
> due to lack of resources.
>
> So far, three people have worked on the lab-scripts. We don't
> have a large community to coordinate and very limited resources for
> process overhead. So, can we talk about priorities and the lab-scripts
> specs that are needed/appropriate for Kilo?
>
> Roger
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-docs mailing list
> OpenStack-docs at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-docs
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-docs/attachments/20141121/61d127cc/attachment.html>