[openstack-dev] [TripleO][Heat][Kolla][Magnum] The zen of Heat, containers, and the future of TripleO

Fox, Kevin M Kevin.Fox at pnnl.gov
Wed Mar 23 22:30:02 UTC 2016

+1. I'm going to keep my eye on the split stack stuff closely now. I think this could be very useful to our site.

From: Steven Hardy [shardy at redhat.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 3:00 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [TripleO][Heat][Kolla][Magnum] The zen of Heat, containers, and the future of TripleO

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 10:42:17AM -0500, Michał Jastrzębski wrote:
> Hello,
> So Ryan, I think you can make use of heat all the way. Architecture of
> kolla doesn't require you to use ansible at all (in fact, we separate
> ansible code to a different repo). Truth is that ansible-kolla is
> developed by most people and considered "the way to deploy kolla" by
> most of us, but we make sure that we won't cut out other deployment
> engines from our potential.
> So bottom line, heat may very well replace ansible code if you can
> duplicate logic we have in playbooks in heat templates. That may
> require docker resource with pretty complete featureset of docker
> itself (named volumes being most important). Bootstrap is usually done
> inside container, so that would be possible too.
> To be honest, as for tripleo doing just bare metal deployment would
> defeat idea of tripleo. We have bare metal deployment tools already
> (cobbler which is used widely, bifrost which use ansible same as kolla
> and integration would be easier), and these comes with significantly
> less footprint than whole tripleo infrastructure. Strength of tripleo
> comes from it's rich config of openstack itself, and I think that
> should be portable to kolla.

Honestly I don't think you can compare TripleO, which offers all the
features of Ironic, Ironic-Inspector, Neutron and Nova with Cobbler, it's
just not an apples-to-apples comparison IMHO.

Even if you used TripleO "just" for the baremetal deployment part, you gain
all of this for free:

- Pluggable node power management (with great vendor support) via Ironic
- Node introspection and benchmarking via ironic-inspector
- Rule based profile matching based on introspection data
- Control of node placement via nova flavors/filters
- Declarative configuration of physical networking
- Very flexible configuration of isolated overlay networks
- Pre-configured Heat, Mistral, Zaqar and Swift (should you choose to use

Yes, you could "just" provision the nodes via a simpler provisioning
tool, or even via Ironic standalone like in bifrost, but as a deployment
tool the TripleO undercloud is pretty nice when you look at the features we
have integrated, and should enable a clean hand-off to ansible or whatever
when we get the split-stack rearchitecting done during Newton.

As a side-note, it'd be great to get better collaboration around the various
teams using Ironic in this way, vs more tenant facing use-cases, and
personally I see that as completely aligned with the idea of TripleO,
nobody ever said you had to use all the pieces (just like OpenStack! :)


OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list