Open Stack

On Mon, 13 May 2013, Devananda van der Veen wrote:

> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Scott Moser <smoser at ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013, Devananda van der Veen wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:47 AM, Scott Moser <smoser at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 10 May 2013, Clint Byrum wrote:
> > > >
> >
> > > > I largely agree here, but we have config-drive in nova.  I think it
> > makes
> > > > sense to have an analog in bare metal provisioning.  In bare metal, it
> > > > would actually allow the nodes to never have access to the management
> > > > network while in "user" possession (ie, detach pxe/management network
> > > > after system installed).
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Config drive for baremetal seems possible for some (but not all)
> > hardware.
> > > Clearly, we'll need to support multiple deployment models :)
> >
> > Can you give an example of what hardware would not be supported?
> >

I probably didn't explain myself clearly.
I'm not suggesting a separate "drive" to be the config drive.  I was
suggesting that the image contain a partition inside it that had a
signature (DOS partition ID or GPT partition label) that indicated it was
the config-drive.

This would have an agreed upon filesystem (vfat or something simple) and
the installer would know how to write into that.

You could write the spec to include the possibility of option of the
"hypervisor" using a separate disk entirely, which actually make it easier
for some implementations (where you have a fancy volume controller
attached to the disks or some sort of "attach ISO" function).