[openstack-dev] [Ironic] Fuel agent proposal
Yuriy Zveryanskyy
yzveryanskyy at mirantis.com
Tue Dec 9 17:35:35 UTC 2014
Vladimir,
IMO there is more "global" problem. Anyone who wants to use baremetal deploy
service should resolve problems with power management, PXE/iPXE support,
DHCP, etc. Or he/she can use Ironic. User has his own vision of deploy
workflow
and features needed for it. He hears from Ironic people: "Feature X
should be
only after release Y" or "This don't fit in Ironic at all".
Fuel Agent + driver is the answer. I see Fuel Agent + driver as a solution
for anyone who wants custom features.
On 12/09/2014 06:24 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov wrote:
>
> We assume next step will be to put provision data (disk partition
> scheme, maybe other data) into driver_info and make Fuel Agent
> driver
> able to serialize those data (special format) and implement a
> corresponding data driver in Fuel Agent for this format. Again
> very
> simple. Maybe it is time to think of having Ironic metadata
> service
> (just maybe).
>
>
> I'm ok with the format, my question is: what and how is going to
> collect all the data and put into say driver_info?
>
>
> Fuel has a web service which stores nodes info in its database. When
> user clicks "Deploy" button, this web service serializes deployment
> task and puts this task into task runner (another Fuel component).
> Then this task runner parses task and adds a node into Ironic via REST
> API (including driver_info). Then it calls Ironic deploy method and
> Ironic uses Fuel Agent driver to deploy a node. Corresponding Fuel
> spec is here https://review.openstack.org/#/c/138301/. Again it is
> zero step implementation.
>
>
> Honestly, I think writing roadmap right now is not very
> rational as far as I am not even sure people are interested in
> widening Ironic use cases. Some of the comments were not even
> constructive like "I don't understand what your use case is,
> please use IPA".
>
> Please don't be offended by this. We did put a lot of effort into
> IPA and it's reasonable to look for a good use cases before having
> one more smart ramdisk. Nothing personal, just estimating cost vs
> value :)
> Also "why not use IPA" is a fair question for me and the answer is
> about use cases (as you stated it before), not about missing
> features of IPA, right?
>
> You are right it is a fair question, and answer is exactly about
> *missing features*.
>
> Nova is not our case. Fuel is totally about deployment. There
> is some in
> common
>
>
> Here when we have a difficult point. Major use case for Ironic is
> to be driven by Nova (and assisted by Neutron). Without these two
> it's hard to understand how Fuel Agent is going to fit into the
> infrastructure. And hence my question above about where your json
> comes from. In the current Ironic world the same data is received
> partly from Nova flavor, partly managed by Neutron completely.
> I'm not saying it can't change - we do want to become more
> stand-alone. E.g. we can do without Neutron right now. I think
> specifying the source of input data for Fuel Agent in the Ironic
> infrastructure would help a lot understand, how well Ironic and
> Fuel Agent could play together.
>
>
> According to the information I have, correct me if I'm wrong, Ironic
> currently is on the stage of becoming stand-alone service. That is the
> reason why this spec has been brought up. Again we need something to
> manage power/tftp/dhcp to substitute Cobbler. Ironic looks like a
> suitable tool, but we need this driver. We are not going to break
> anything. We have resources to test and support this driver. And I can
> not use IPA *right now* because it does not have features I need. I
> can not wait for next half a year for these features to be
> implemented. Why can't we add this (Fuel Agent) driver and then if IPA
> implements what we need we can switch to IPA. The only alternative for
> me right now is to implement my own power/tftp/dhcp management
> solution like I did with Fuel Agent when I did not get approve for
> including advanced disk partitioning.
>
> Questions are: Is Ironic interested in this use case or not? Is Ironic
> interested to get more development resources? The only case when it's
> rational for us to spend our resources to develop Ironic is when we
> get something back. We are totally pragmatic, we just address our
> user's wishes and issues. It is ok for us to use any tool which
> provides what we need (IPA, Fuel Agent, any other).
>
> We need advanced disk partitioning and power/tftp/dhcp management by
> March 2015. Is it possible to get this from Ironic + IPA? I doubt it.
> Is it possible to get this form Ironic + Fuel Agent? Yes it is. Is it
> possible to get this from Fuel power/tftp/dhcp management + Fuel
> Agent? Yes it is. So, I have two options right now: Ironic + Fuel
> Agent or Fuel power/tftp/dhcp management + Fuel Agent.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20141209/145fc413/attachment.html>
More information about the OpenStack-dev
mailing list