Open Stack

Is that because of trying to shoehorn docker containers into rpm's though? I've never seen anyone else try and use them that way. Maybe they belong in a docker repo like the hub or something openstack.org hosted instead?

Thanks,
Kevin
________________________________________
From: Igor Kalnitsky [ikalnitsky at mirantis.com]
Sent: Friday, November 27, 2015 1:22 AM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [Fuel] Getting rid of Docker containers on the Fuel master node

Hey Vladimir,

Thanks for your effort on doing this job. Unfortunately we have not so
much time left and FF is coming, so I'm afraid it's become unreal to
make it before FF. Especially if it takes 2-3 days to fix system
tests.


Andrew,

I had the same opinion some time ago, but it was changed because
nobody puts effort to fix our Docker experience. Moreover Docker is
still buggy and we have a plenty of issues such as stale mount points
for instance. Besides, I don't like our upgrade procedure -

1. Install fuel-docker-images.rpm
2. Load images from installed tarball to Docker
3. Re-create containers from new images

Where (2) and (3) are manual steps and breaks idea of "yum update"
delivery approach.

Thanks,
Igor

On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 9:43 PM, Andrew Woodward <xarses at gmail.com> wrote:
> <opinion>
> IMO, removing the docker containers is a mistake v.s. fixing them and using
> them properly. They provide an isolation that is necessary (and that we
> mangle) to make services portable and scaleable. We really should sit down
> and document how we really want all of the services to interact before we
> rip the containers out.
>
> I agree, the way we use containers now still is quite wrong, and brings us
> some negative value, but I'm not sold on stripping them out now just because
> they no longer bring the same upgrades value as before.
> </opinion>
>
> My opinion aside, we are rushing into this far to late in the feature cycle.
> Prior to moving forward with this, we need a good QA plan, the spec is quite
> light on that and must receive review and approval from QA. This needs to
> include an actual testing plan.
>
> From the implementation side, we are pushing up against the FF deadline. We
> need to document what our time objectives are for this and when we will no
> longer consider this for 8.0.
>
> Lastly, for those that are +1 on the thread here, please review and comment
> on the spec, It's received almost no attention for something with such a
> large impact.
>
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 4:58 PM Vladimir Kozhukalov
> <vkozhukalov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>> The status is as follows:
>>
>> 1) Fuel-main [1] and fuel-library [2] patches can deploy the master node
>> w/o docker containers
>> 2) I've not built experimental ISO yet (have been testing and debugging
>> manually)
>> 3) There are still some flaws (need better formatting, etc.)
>> 4) Plan for tomorrow is to build experimental ISO and to begin fixing
>> system tests and fix the spec.
>>
>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248649
>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248650
>>
>> Vladimir Kozhukalov
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov
>> <vkozhukalov at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Colleagues,
>>>
>>> I've started working on the change. Here are two patches (fuel-main [1]
>>> and fuel-library [2]). They are not ready to review (still does not work and
>>> under active development). Changes are not going to be huge. Here is a spec
>>> [3]. Will keep the status up to date in this ML thread.
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248649
>>> [2] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248650
>>> [3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/248814
>>>
>>>
>>> Vladimir Kozhukalov
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Aleksandr Maretskiy
>>> <amaretskiy at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Bogdan Dobrelya
>>>> <bdobrelia at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23.11.2015 12:47, Aleksandr Maretskiy wrote:
>>>>> > Hi all,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > as you know, Rally runs inside docker on Fuel master node, so docker
>>>>> > removal (good improvement) is a problem for Rally users.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > To solve this, I'm planning to make native Rally installation on Fuel
>>>>> > master node that is running on CentOS 7,
>>>>> > and then make a step-by-step instruction how to make this
>>>>> > installation.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > So I hope docker removal will not make issues for Rally users.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe the most backwards compatible scenario is to keep the docker
>>>>> installed while removing the fuel-* docker things back to the host OS.
>>>>> So nothing would prevent user from pulling and running whichever docker
>>>>> containers he wants to put on the Fuel master node. Makes sense?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sounds good
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________________________________
>>>> 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
>
> --
>
> --
>
> Andrew Woodward
>
> Mirantis
>
> Fuel Community Ambassador
>
> Ceph Community
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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