Open Stack

I'm not sure if it is necessary to write up or provide support on how to 
use more than one deployment tool, but I think any work that 
inadvertently makes it harder for an operator to use their own existing 
deployment infrastructure could run some people off.

Regarding "deploy a VM to deploy bifrost to deploy bare metal", I 
suspect that situation will not be unique to bifrost. At the moment I'm 
using MAAS and it has a hard dependency on Upstart for init up until 
around Ubuntu Trusty and then was ported to systemd in Wily. I do not 
think you can just switch to another init daemon or run it under 
supervisord without significant work. I was not even able to get the 
maas package to install during a docker build because it couldn't 
communicate with the init system it wanted. In addition, for any 
deployment tool that enrolls/deploys via PXE the tool may also require 
accommodations when being containerized simply because this whole topic 
is fairly low in the stack of abstractions. For example I'm not sure 
whether any of these tools running in a container would respond to a new 
bare metal host's initial DHCP broadcast without --net=host or similar 
consideration.

As long as the most common deployment option in Kolla is Ansible, making 
deployment tools pluggable is fairly easy to solve. MAAS and bifrost 
both have inventory scripts that can provide dynamic inventory to 
kolla-ansible while still pulling Kolla's child groups from the 
multinode inventory file. Another common pattern could be for a given 
deployment tool to template out a new (static) multinode inventory and 
then we just append Kolla's groups to the file before calling 
kolla-ansible. The problem, to me, becomes in getting every other option 
(k8s, puppet, etc.) to work similarly. Perhaps you just state that each 
implementation must be pluggable to various deployment tools and let 
people that know their respective tool handle the how.(?)

Currently I am running MAAS inside a Vagrant box to retain some of the 
immutability and easy "create/destroy" workflow that having it 
containerized would offer. It works very well and, assuming nothing else 
was running on the underlying deployment host, I'd have no issue running 
it in prod that way even with the Vagrant layer.

Thank you,
Mark

On 5/9/2016 4:52 PM, Britt Houser (bhouser) wrote:
> Are we (as the Kolla community) open to other bare metal provisioners? 
>  The austin discussion was titled generic bare metal, but very quickly 
> turned into bifrost-only discourse.  The initial survey showed 
> cobbler/maas/OoO as  alternatives people use today.  So if the bifrost 
> strategy is, "deploy a VM to deploy bifrost to deploy bare metal" and 
> will cleaned up later, then maybe its time to take a deeper look at 
> the other deployment tools and see if they are a better fit?
>
> Thx,
> britt
>
> From: "Steven Dake (stdake)" <stdake at cisco.com <mailto:stdake at cisco.com>>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage 
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 5:41 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
>
>
>
> From: Devananda van der Veen <devananda.vdv at gmail.com 
> <mailto:devananda.vdv at gmail.com>>
> Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage 
> questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Date: Monday, May 9, 2016 at 1:12 PM
> To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" 
> <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org 
> <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
>
>
>
>     On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 10:56 AM, Steven Dake (stdake)
>     <stdake at cisco.com <mailto:stdake at cisco.com>> wrote:
>
>         Sean,
>
>         Thanks for taking this on :)  I didn't know you had such an AR :)
>
>         From: "Mooney, Sean K" <sean.k.mooney at intel.com
>         <mailto:sean.k.mooney at intel.com>>
>         Reply-To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>         questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>         <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>         Date: Friday, May 6, 2016 at 10:14 AM
>         To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
>         questions)" <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>         <mailto:openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>>
>         Subject: [openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
>
>             Hi everyone.
>
>             Following up on my AR from the kolla host repository session
>
>             https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-newton-summit-kolla-kolla-host-repo
>
>             I started working on creating a kolla bifrost container.
>
>             Are some initial success it have hit a roadblock with the
>             current install playbook provided by bifrost.
>
>             In particular the install playbook both installs the
>             ironic dependencies and configure and runs the services.
>
>
>         What I'd do here is ignore the install playbook and duplicate
>         what it installs.  We don't want to install at run time, we
>         want to install at build time.  You weren't clear if that is
>         what your doing.
>
>
>     That's going to be quite a bit of work. The bifrost-install
>     playbook does a lot more than just install the ironic services and
>     a few system packages; it also installs rabbit, mysql, nginx,
>     dnsmasq *and* configures all of these in a very specific way.
>     Re-inventing all of this is basically re-inventing Bifrost.
>
>
> Sean's latest proposal was splitting this one operation into three 
> smaller decomposed steps.
>
>         The reason we would ignore the install playbook is because it
>         runs the services.  We need to run the services in a different
>         way.
>
>
>     Do you really need to run them in a different way? If it's just a
>     matter of "use a different init system", I wonder how easily that
>     could be accomodated within the Bifrost project itself.... If
>     there's another reason, please elaborate.
>
>
> To run in a container, we cannot use systemd.  This leaves us with 
> supervisord, which certainly can and should be done in the context of 
> upstream bifrost.
>
>          This will (as we discussed at ODS) be a fat container on the
>         underlord cloud – which I guess is ok.  I'd recommend not
>         using systemd, as that will break systemd systems badly.
>         Instead use a different init system, such as supervisord.
>
>             The installation of ironic and its dependencies would not
>             be a problem but the ansible service module is not cable
>             able of starting the
>
>             Infrastructure services (mysql,rabbit …) without a running
>             init system which is not present during the docker build.
>
>             When I created a biforst container in the past is spawned
>             a Ubuntu upstart container then docker exec into the
>             container and ran
>
>             Bifrost install script. This works because the init system
>             is running and the service module could test and start the
>             relevant services.
>
>             This leave me with 3 paths forward.
>
>             1.I can continue to try and make the bifrost install
>             script work with the kolla build system by using sed to
>             modify the install playbook or try start systemd during
>             the docker build.
>
>             2.I can use the kolla build system to build only part of
>             the image
>
>             a. the bifrost-base image would be build with the kolla
>             build system without running the bifrost playbook. This
>             would allow the existing allow the existing features of
>             the build system such as adding headers/footers to be used.
>
>             b.After the base image is built by kolla I can spawn an
>             instance of bifrost-base with systemd running
>
>             c.I can then connect to this running container and run the
>             bifrost install script unmodified.
>
>             d.Once it is finished I can stop the container and export
>             it to an image “bifros-postinstall”.
>
>             e.This can either be used directly (fat container) or as
>             the base image for other container that run each of the
>             ironic services (thin containers)
>
>             3.I can  skip the kolla build system entirely and create a
>             script/playbook that will build the bifrost container
>             similar to 2.
>
>
>         4.
>         Make a supervisord set of init scripts and make the docker
>         file do what it was intended – install the files. This is kind
>         of a mashup of your 1-3 ideas.  Good thinking :)
>
>             While option 1 would fully use the kolla build system It
>             is my least favorite as it is both hacky and complicated
>             to make work.
>
>             Docker really was not designed to run systemd as part of
>             docker build.
>
>             For option 2 and 3 I can provide a single playbook/script
>             that will fully automate the build but the real question I
>             have
>
>             Is should I use the kolla build system to make the base
>             image or not.
>
>             If anyone else has suggestion on how I can progress 
>             please let me know but currently I am leaning towards
>             option 2.
>
>
>         If you have questions about my suggestion to use supervisord,
>         hit me up on IRC.  Ideally we would also contribute these init
>         scripts back into bifrost code base assuming they want them,
>         which I think they would.  Nobody will run systemd in a
>         container, and we all have an interest in seeing BiFrost as
>         the standard bare metal deployment model inside or outside of
>         containers.
>
>         Regards
>         -steve
>
>             The only other option I see would be to not use a
>             container and either install biforst on the host or in a vm.
>
>         GROAN – one advantage containers provide us is not mucking up
>         the host OS with a bajillion dependencies.  I'd like to keep
>         that part of Kolla intact :)
>
>
>     Right - don't install it on the host, but what's the problem with
>     running it in a VM?
>
>     FWIW, I already run Bifrost quite successfully in a VM in each of
>     my environments.
>
>
> There isn't a super specific problem with running it in a VM other 
> than Kolla is about containers not VMs.  OpenStack can obviously be 
> run in a VM – our major reason for wanting containers is upgradability 
> which Vms don't offer atomically.
>
> That said, we could run in a VM initially and over time port to run in 
> a container.  What we are after long term is a container–based 
> approach to bifrost in upstream bifrost, not replicating or 
> duplicating a bunch of work.
>
> I believe Sean's approach of splitting out the 3 separate steps makes 
> logical sense (to me) in the sense that the one major installation 
> step is broken into the separate build & deploy steps that Kolla uses.
>
> Hope that helps
>
> Regards
> -steve
>
>
>
>     --Deva
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20160509/925e1c8c/attachment.html>