Open Stack

@Vova,
thanks for bringing this up.
The new approach without docker containers on master node really has many
advantages.

@Igor,
regarding your question, I would say that we have many dependencies from
containers in CI/CD systems and test's codebase. The test alignment to the
new implementation won't be easy. In such things we should move forward
step by step.
As you know the first step is a spec file, can you give us a link to it?


Nastya.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 6:10 AM, Oleg Gelbukh <ogelbukh at mirantis.com> wrote:

> With CentOS7 we will have python2.7 at Fuel Admin node as a default
> version, I believe.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Oleg Gelbukh,
> Principal Engineer
> Mirantis
>
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 6:27 AM, Timur Nurlygayanov <
> tnurlygayanov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>> 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 Are you planning to provide py27 at least or my note is outdated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 Are you planning to provide py27 at least or my note is outdated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
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20151123/27cf50d5/attachment.html>