Open Stack

Sam Yaple

On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 1:15 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
wrote:

>
>
> From: Sam Yaple <samuel at yaple.net>
> Reply-To: "sam at yaple.net" <sam at yaple.net>
> Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:01 PM
> To: Steven Dake <stdake at cisco.com>
> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
> openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>
> Subject: Re: [kolla] Followup to review in gerrit relating to RHOS + RDO
> types
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <stdake at cisco.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks,
>>
>> Sam had asked a reasonable set of questions regarding a patchset:
>> https://review.openstack.org/#/c/222893/
>>
>> The purpose of the patchset is to enable both RDO and RHOS as binary
>> choices on RHEL platforms.  I suspect over time, from-source deployments
>> have the potential to become the norm, but the business logistics of such a
>> change are going to take some significant time to sort out.
>>
>> Red Hat has two distros of OpenStack neither of which are from source.
>> One is free called RDO and the other is paid called RHOS.  In order to
>> obtain support for RHEL VMs running in an OpenStack cloud, you must be
>> running on RHOS RPM binaries.  You must also be running on RHEL.  It
>> remains to be seen whether Red Hat will actively support Kolla deployments
>> with a RHEL+RHOS set of packaging in containers, but my hunch says they
>> will.  It is in Kolla’s best interest to implement this model and not make
>> it hard on Operators since many of them do indeed want Red Hat’s support
>> structure for their OpenStack deployments.
>>
>> Now to Sam’s questions:
>> "Where does 'binary' fit in if we have 'rdo' and 'rhos'? How many more do
>> we add? What's our policy on adding a new type?”
>>
>> I’m not immediately clear on how binary fits in.  We could make
>> binary synonymous with the community supported version (RDO) while still
>> implementing the binary RHOS version.  Note Kolla does not “support” any
>> distribution or deployment of OpenStack – Operators will have to look to
>> their vendors for support.
>>
>
> If everything between centos+rdo and rhel+rhos is mostly the same then I
> would think it would make more sense to just use the base ('rhel' in this
> case) to branch of any differences in the templates. This would also allow
> for the least amount of change and most generic implementation of this
> vendor specific packaging. This would also match what we do with
> oraclelinux, we do not have a special type for that and any specifics would
> be handled by an if statement around 'oraclelinux' and not some special
> type.
>
>
> I think what you are proposing is RHEL + RHOS and CENTOS + RDO.  RDO also
> runs on RHEL.  I want to enable Red Hat customers to make a choice to have
> a supported  operating system but not a supported Cloud environment.  The
> answer here is RHEL + RDO.  This leads to full support down the road if the
> Operator chooses to pay Red Hat for it by an easy transition to RHOS.
>

I am against including vendor specific things like RHOS in Kolla outright
like you are purposing. Suppose another vendor comes along with a new base
and new packages. They are willing to maintain it, but its something that
no one but their customers with their licensing can use. This is not
something that belongs in Kolla and I am unsure that it is even appropriate
to belong in OpenStack as a whole. Unless RHEL+RHOS can be used by those
that do not have a license for it, I do not agree with adding it at all.


> For oracle linux, I’d like to keep RDO for oracle linux and from source on
> oracle linux as choices.  RDO also runs on oracle linux.  Perhaps the patch
> set needs some later work here to address this point in more detail, but as
> is “binary” covers oracle linu.
>

> Perhaps what we should do is get rid of the binary type entirely.  Ubuntu
> doesn’t really have a binary type, they have a cloudarchive type, so binary
> doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Since Ubuntu to my knowledge doesn’t have two
> distributions of OpenStack the same logic wouldn’t apply to providing a
> full support onramp for Ubuntu customers.  Oracle doesn’t provide a binary
> type either, their binary type is really RDO.
>

The binary packages for Ubuntu are _packaged_ by the cloudarchive team. But
in the case of when OpenStack collides with an LTS release (Icehouse and
14.04 was the last one) you do not add a new repo because the packages are
in the main Ubuntu repo.

Debian provides its own packages as well. I do not want a type name per
distro. 'binary' catches all packaged OpenStack things by a distro.


>
> FWIW I never liked the transition away from rdo in the repo names to
> binary.  I guess I should have –1’ed those reviews back then, but I think
> its time to either revisit the decision or compromise that binary and rdo
> mean the same thing in a centos and rhel world.
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
> Since we implement multiple bases, some of which are not RPM based, it
> doesn't make much sense to me to have rhel and rdo as a type which is why
> we removed rdo in the first place in favor of the more generic 'binary'.
>
>
>>
>> As such the implied second question “How many more do we add?” sort of
>> sounds like ‘how many do we support?”.  The answer to the second question
>> is none – again the Kolla community does not support any deployment of
>> OpenStack.  To the question as posed, how many we add, the answer is it is
>> really up to community members willing to  implement and maintain the
>> work.  In this case, I have personally stepped up to implement RHOS and
>> maintain it going forward.
>>
>> Our policy on adding a new type could be simple or onerous.  I prefer
>> simple.  If someone is willing to write the code and maintain it so that is
>> stays in good working order, I see no harm in it remaining in tree.  I
>> don’t suspect there will be a lot of people interested in adding multiple
>> distributions for a particular operating system.  To my knowledge, and I
>> could be incorrect, Red Hat is the only OpenStack company with a paid and
>> community version available of OpenStack simultaneously and the paid
>> version is only available on RHEL.  I think the risk of RPM based
>> distributions plus their type count spiraling out of manageability is low.
>> Even if the risk were high, I’d prefer to keep an open mind to facilitate
>> an increase in diversity in our community (which is already fantastically
>> diverse, btw ;)
>>
>> I am open to questions, comments or concerns.  Please feel free to voice
>> them.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -steve
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150913/bf229023/attachment.html>