[Openstack-operators] Proposal for an 'Operations' project

Tim Bell Tim.Bell at cern.ch
Mon Nov 10 18:03:03 UTC 2014

My impression of the operations teams is that there is not yet consensus on the toolchains. This would make it difficult to establish a single project since the selection has many criteria outside of OpenStack (e.g. in-house skills, current deployments).

I think the github repo (https://github.com/osops) is a great move to allow easy access to how others are doing it but it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to adopt a single toolchain given the investment in other areas.

Unless everyone adopts Puppet, ElasticSearch, Hadoop and Flume like CERN ☺

The deployment program is very different and it is not clear to me that TripleO is the universal solution either but that is another question…


From: Craig Tracey [mailto:craig at craigtracey.com]
Sent: 10 November 2014 18:41
To: Michael Chapman
Cc: openstack-operators
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] Proposal for an 'Operations' project

Agree with Mike 1000%.

This is something we should have done ages ago, and being agnostic is the correct way to get traction on this stuff. We'll be happy to help.

Thanks for championing this!
On Nov 10, 2014 11:37 AM, "Michael Chapman" <woppin at gmail.com<mailto:woppin at gmail.com>> wrote:
Here's the etherpad from Friday: https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kilo-summit-ops-opsprogram

Jonothan: Your example of including log filters in oslo is extremely confusing. I am talking about something like this: https://github.com/OpenStratus/openstack-logstash/blob/master/agent.conf

Which really doesn't belong in oslo. There's similar configuration for equivalents such as splunk or fluentd, all doing roughly the same thing depending on the operator's tool of choice.

Same idea for nagios/sensu/zabbix/$other_tool

Jeremy: OpenStack is so large that setting up packaging, monitoring and log aggregation for it isn't something that can be done easily, yet without configuring any monitoring or log aggregation it is extremely difficult to diagnose and fix issues in a running cloud, and without a packaging pipeline fixes can't be deployed easily.

As to whether to include these things in the deployment program, I would say that I think the Deployment program is covering a 'delivery mechanism', whereas the things I am talking about are 'things to be delivered'. Clint and I had a quick chat on Friday during the TripleO session and I think we are thinking along very similar lines.

I want to have a bunch of repos with things that deployment tools (including Fuel and TripleO and anything else that gets cooked up) can easily consume to improve the operator experience.
I want a standard packaging system so that sites doing CI/CD today can all build packages from their own repos and collaborate on the specs/process in an upstream location, and I want it to be easily clone-able locally.
I want it all under a single program so that in the future we can potentially reward and acknowledge people doing the work as contributors to OpenStack.

OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20141110/88faeae9/attachment.html>

More information about the OpenStack-operators mailing list