Open Stack

Hey Vladimir,


>
>
>> 1) There won't be such things in like [1] and [2], thus less complicated
>>> flow, less errors, easier to maintain, easier to understand, easier to
>>> troubleshoot
>>> 2) If one wants to have local mirror, the flow is the same as in case of
>>> upstream repos (fuel-createmirror), which is clrear for a user to
>>> understand.
>>>
>>
>> From the issues I've seen,  fuel-createmirror isn't very straight forward
>> and has some issues making it a bad UX.
>>
>
> I'd say the whole approach of having such tool as fuel-createmirror is a
> way too naive. Reliable internet connection is totally up to network
> engineering rather than deployment. Even using proxy is much better that
> creating local mirror. But this discussion is totally out of the scope of
> this letter. Currently,  we have fuel-createmirror and it is pretty
> straightforward (installed as rpm, has just a couple of command line
> options). The quality of this script is also out of the scope of this
> thread. BTW we have plans to improve it.
>


Fair enough, I just wanted to raise the UX issues around these types of
things as they should go into the decision making process.



>
>>
>>> Many people still associate ISO with MOS, but it is not true when using
>>> package based delivery approach.
>>>
>>> It is easy to define necessary repos during deployment and thus it is
>>> easy to control what exactly is going to be installed on slave nodes.
>>>
>>> What do you guys think of it?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Reliance on internet connectivity has been an issue since 6.1. For many
>> large users, complete access to the internet is not available or not
>> desired.  If we want to continue down this path, we need to improve the
>> tools to setup the local mirror and properly document what urls/ports/etc
>> need to be available for the installation of openstack and any mirror
>> creation process.  The ideal thing is to have an all-in-one CD similar to a
>> live cd that allows a user to completely try out fuel wherever they want
>> with out further requirements of internet access.  If we don't want to
>> continue with that, we need to do a better job around providing the tools
>> for a user to get up and running in a timely fashion.  Perhaps providing an
>> net-only iso and an all-included iso would be a better solution so people
>> will have their expectations properly set up front?
>>
>
> Let me explain why I think having local MOS mirror by default is bad:
> 1) I don't see any reason why we should treat MOS  repo other way than all
> other online repos. A user sees on the settings tab the list of repos one
> of which is local by default while others are online. It can make user a
> little bit confused, can't it? A user can be also confused by the fact,
> that some of the repos can be cloned locally by fuel-createmirror while
> others can't. That is not straightforward, NOT fuel-createmirror UX.
>


I agree. The process should be the same and it should be just another repo.
It doesn't mean we can't include a version on an ISO as part of a release.
Would it be better to provide the mirror on the ISO but not have it enabled
by default for a release so that we can gather user feedback on this? This
would include improved documentation and possibly allowing a user to choose
their preference so we can collect metrics?


2) Having local MOS mirror by default makes things much more convoluted. We
> are forced to have several directories with predefined names and we are
> forced to manage these directories in nailgun, in upgrade script, etc. Why?
> 3) When putting MOS mirror on ISO, we make people think that ISO is equal
> to MOS, which is not true. It is possible to implement really flexible
> delivery scheme, but we need to think of these things as they are
> independent.
>


I'm not sure what you mean by this. Including a point in time copy on an
ISO as a release is a common method of distributing software. Is this a
messaging thing that needs to be addressed? Perhaps I'm not familiar with
people referring to the ISO as being MOS.


For large users it is easy to build custom ISO and put there what they need
> but first we need to have simple working scheme clear for everyone. I think
> dealing with all repos the same way is what is gonna makes things simpler.
>
>

Who is going to build a custom ISO? How does one request that? What
resources are consumed by custom ISO creation process/request? Does this
scale?



> This thread is not about internet connectivity, it is about aligning
> things.
>
>
You are correct in that this thread is not explicitly about internet
connectivity, but they are related. Any changes to remove a local
repository and only provide an internet based solution makes internet
connectivity something that needs to be included in the discussion.  I just
want to make sure that we properly evaluate this decision based on end user
feedback not because we don't want to manage this from a developer
standpoint.

-Alex
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150909/317f98ab/attachment.html>