[openstack-dev] [trove][sahara][infra][Octavia][manila] discussion of image building in Trove

Flavio Percoco flavio at redhat.com
Wed May 4 15:55:07 UTC 2016

On 04/05/16 15:05 +0000, Amrith Kumar wrote:
>I'm emailing the ML on the subject of a review ongoing in the Trove project regarding image building[1].
>One of the most frequent questions that new users of Trove ask is how and where to get guest images with which to experiment with Trove, and how to build these images for themselves. While documentation about this exists in multiple places (including [2], [3]) this is still something that can do with some improvement.
>Trove currently uses diskimage-builder for building images used in testing the product and these can serve as a good basis for anyone wishing to build an image for their own use of Trove. The review [1] makes the argument for the libguestfs based approach to building images and advocates that Trove should use this instead of diskimage-builder.

At the summit we discussed the possibility of providing an implementation that
would allow for both DIB and libguestfs to be used but to give priority to DIB.
Since there's no real intention of just switching tools at this point, I believe
it'd be good to amend the spec so that it doesn't mention libguestfs should be
used instead of DiB.

The goal at this stage is to provide both and help these move forward.

>I believe that a broader discussion of this is required and I appreciate Greg Haynes' proposal at the design summit to have this discussion on the ML. I took the action item to bring this discussion to the ML.
>Details follow ...
>Before going further, I will state my views on these matters.
>1. It is important for the Trove project to do things quickly to make it easier for end users who wish to use Trove and who wish to build their own images. I am not concerned what tool or tools a person will use to build these images.
>2. If we provide multiple alternatives to image building as part of the Trove project, we should make sure that images built with all sets of tools are equivalent and usable interchangeably. Failing to do this will make it harder for users to use Trove because we will be providing them with a false choice (i.e. the alternatives aren't really alternatives). This is harder than it sounds given the combination of tools, operating systems, and the source(s) from which you can get database software.

Maintaining both in the long run will be harder especially because, as you
mentioned, the output must be usable interchangeably. However, I think we're at
a point, based on the comments in [1] made by Pino Toscano, Luigi Toscano and
some other folks that it'd be beneficial for us to have this discussion and to
also experiment/test other options.

The Sahara team seems to be going in a direction that differs with the one used
by the infra team and the one we're headed to (although they overlap in some

>3. Trove already has elements for all supported databases using DIB in the trove-integration project but these elements are not packaged for customer use. Making them usable by customers is a relatively small effort including providing a wrapper script (derived from redstack[4]) and providing an element to install the guest agent software from a fixed location in addition to the development and testing version that is better suited to Trove development [5] and [6].
>4. My comments on various patch sets in the review[1].
>I agree with Monty and Greg Haynes that we should understand the deficiencies if any in DIB, and if it is in fact the case that they are "intractable/unsolvable", we should switch toolchains. This discussion should include issues faced by the Trove team as well as other teams that may have faced problems with DIB (such as the sahara team who described some of them in the past).


Agreed with the above. I'm think collaboration should be the preferred way. I
don't think I've enough technical insight on this topic to provide a detailed
list of things that are good/bad on either of these tools but I wanted to
mention that I believe providing support for both in the short run is good for
us and it helps to make a better decision on what tool works best for the project.

There's someone willing to do the job and spend sometime doing the research.
This same person will provide feedback in addition to the one already provided
in [1].

Sorry for not providing much technical details now but I did want to share the
above. Thanks for starting this thread, I believe this discussion in the ML will
be beneficial.


>[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/295274/
>[2] http://docs.openstack.org/developer/trove/dev/building_guest_images.html
>[3] https://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/diskimage-builder/tree/README.rst#writing-an-element
>[4] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/trove-integration/tree/scripts/redstack
>[5] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/trove-integration/tree/scripts/files/trove-guest.systemd.conf
>[6] http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/trove-integration/tree/scripts/files/trove-guest.upstart.conf
>OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe

Flavio Percoco
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160504/b71376f7/attachment.pgp>

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list