Open Stack

Hi Andrey,

As far as I remember from the last usage of fuel master node, there was
> Centos + py26 installation. Python 2.6 is old enough and sometimes it is
> hard to launch some application on fuel node without docker (image with
> py27/py3). Are you planning to provide py27 at least or my note is outdated
> and I can already use py27 from the box?

We can install docker on master node anyway to run Rally / Tempest or other
test suites and scripts from master node with Python 2.7 or something also.

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 5:20 PM, Andrey Kurilin <akurilin at mirantis.com>
wrote:

> Hi!
> I'm not fuel developer, so opinion below is based on user-view.
> As far as I remember from the last usage of fuel master node, there was
> Centos + py26 installation. Python 2.6 is old enough and sometimes it is
> hard to launch some application on fuel node without docker (image with
> py27/py3). Are you planning to provide py27 at least or my note is outdated
> and I can already use py27 from the box?
>
> On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 4:59 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov <
> vkozhukalov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear colleagues,
>>
>> As might remember, we introduced Docker containers on the master node a
>> while ago when we implemented first version of Fuel upgrade feature. The
>> motivation behind was to make it possible to rollback upgrade process if
>> something goes wrong.
>>
>> Now we are at the point where we can not use our tarball based upgrade
>> approach any more and those patches that deprecate upgrade tarball has been
>> already merged. Although it is a matter of a separate discussion, it seems
>> that upgrade process rather should be based on kind of backup and restore
>> procedure. We can backup Fuel data on an external media, then we can
>> install new version of Fuel from scratch and then it is assumed backed up
>> Fuel data can be applied over this new Fuel instance. The procedure itself
>> is under active development, but it is clear that rollback in this case
>> would be nothing more than just restoring from the previously backed up
>> data.
>>
>> As for Docker containers, still there are potential advantages of using
>> them on the Fuel master node, but our current implementation of the feature
>> seems not mature enough to make us benefit from the containerization.
>>
>> At the same time there are some disadvantages like
>>
>>    - it is tricky to get logs and other information (for example, rpm
>>    -qa) for a service like shotgun which is run inside one of containers.
>>    - it is specific UX when you first need to run dockerctl shell
>>    {container_name} and then you are able to debug something.
>>    - when building IBP image we mount directory from the host file
>>    system into mcollective container to make image build faster.
>>    - there are config files and some other files which should be shared
>>    among containers which introduces unnecessary complexity to the whole
>>    system.
>>    - our current delivery approach assumes we wrap into rpm/deb packages
>>    every single piece of the Fuel system. Docker images are not an exception.
>>    And as far as they depend on other rpm packages we forced to build
>>    docker-images rpm package using kind of specific build flow. Besides this
>>    package is quite big (300M).
>>    - I'd like it to be possible to install Fuel not from ISO but from
>>    RPM repo on any rpm based distribution. But it is double work to support
>>    both Docker based and package based approach.
>>
>> Probably some of you can give other examples. Anyway, the idea is to get
>> rid of Docker containers on the master node and switch to plane package
>> based approach that we used before.
>>
>> As far as there is nothing new here, we just need to use our old site.pp
>> (with minimal modifications), it looks like it is possible to implement
>> this during 8.0 release cycle. If there are no principal objections, please
>> give me a chance to do this ASAP (during 8.0), I know it is a huge risk for
>> the release, but still I think I can do this.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Vladimir Kozhukalov
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe:
>> OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Andrey Kurilin.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>


-- 

Timur,
Senior QA Engineer
OpenStack Projects
Mirantis Inc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151120/69f552c0/attachment.html>