Open Stack

Hello,

I agree with Vladimir - the idea of online repos is a right way to
move. In 2015 I believe we can ignore this "poor Internet connection"
reason, and simplify both Fuel and UX. Moreover, take a look at Linux
distributives - most of them fetch needed packages from the Internet
during installation, not from CD/DVD. The netboot installers are
popular, I can't even remember when was the last time I install my
Debian from the DVD-1 - I use netboot installer for years.

Thanks,
Igor


On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Yaguang Tang <ytang at mirantis.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Alex Schultz <aschultz at mirantis.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
>
>  +1, whatever the changes is, please keep Fuel as a tool that can deploy
> without Internet access, this is part of reason that people like it and it's
> better that other tools.
>>
>>
>> -Alex
>>
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Yaguang Tang
> Technical Support, Mirantis China
>
> Phone: +86 15210946968
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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
>