Open Stack

Mike,

We discussed this in our team syncup meeting earlier today. The
agreement was that HA is the biggest risk with the current approach.
However, keeping our current state of divergence from upstream (and
even exagerrating it further) leaves us with a huge technical debt, so
the tradeoff between that and potential new neutron deployment issues
is not that obvious. Andrew is confident that he can port our HA
deployment code over to the current upstream puppet-neutron by the end
of this week, he's now updating the spec per review comments from the
team and we will have another meeting tomorrow morning (8am PT) to go
over all concerns and risks.

-DmitryB

On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 3:57 AM, Mike Scherbakov
<mscherbakov at mirantis.com> wrote:
> Fuelers, Andrew,
> I've talked to Sergey V. today about ML2 support in Fuel. Our current
> approach [1] is to port upstream puppet module for Neutron which has support
> of ML2, however our Neutron module is significantly diverged from upstream
> one (at least for Neutron HA deployment capabilities), as far as I
> understand. Basically, there is a risk that we will get unstable Neutron
> deployment in 5.1. Also, unless we have ML2, we are blocking others who rely
> on it, for example Mellanox.
>
> To mitigate the risk, there is a suggestion to start the work in two
> parallel tracks: one is to continue porting of upstream puppet module, and
> another one - port the only ML2 part into Fuel Neutron puppet module. This
> will not take much time, but will allow us to have 5.1 reliable and with ML2
> in case of instability after porting external module.
>
> Your opinion on this?
>
> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/99807/1/specs/5.1/ml2-neutron.rst
> --
> Mike Scherbakov
> #mihgen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>



-- 
Dmitry Borodaenko