[openstack-dev] [tripleo][manila] Moving forward with landing manila in tripleo

Marios Andreou marios at redhat.com
Fri May 27 13:10:14 UTC 2016

Hi all, I explicitly cc'd a few folks I thought might be interested for
visibility, sorry for spam if you're not. This email is about getting
manila landed into tripleo asap, and the current obstacles to that (at
least those visible to me):

The current review [1] isn't going to land as is, regardless of the
outcome/discussion of any of the following points because all the
services are going to "composable controller services". How do people
feel about me merging my review at [2] into its parent review (which is
the current manilla review at [1]). My review just takes what is in  [1]
(caveats below) and makes it 'composable', and includes a dependency on
[3] which is the puppet-tripleo side for the 'composable manila'.

   ---> Proposal merge the 'composable manila' tripleo-heat-templates
review @ [2] into the parent review @ [1]. The review at [2] will be
abandoned. We will continue to try and land [1] in its new 'composable
manila' form.

WRT the 'caveats' mentioned above and why I haven't just just ported
what is in the current manila review @ [1] into the composable one @
[2]... there are two main things I've changed, both of which on
guidance/discussion on the reviews.

The first is addition of manila-data (wasn't in the original/current
review at [1]). The second a change to the pacemaker constraints, which
I've corrected to make manila-data and manila-share pacemaker a/p but
everything else systemd managed, based on ongoing discussion at [3].

So IMO to move forward I need clarity on both those points. For
manila-data my concerns are is it already available where we need it. I
looked at puppet-manila [4] and couldn't quickly find much (any) mention
of manila-data. We need it there if we are to configure anything for it
via puppet. The other unkown/concern here is does manila-data get
delivered with the manila package (I recall manila-share possibly, at
least one of them, had a stand-alone package) otherwise we'll need to
add it to the image. But mainly my question here is, can we live without
it? I mean can we deploy sans manila-data or does it just not make sense
(sorry for silly question). The motivation is if we can let's land and
iterate to add it.

   Q. Can we live w/out manila-data so we can land and iterate (esp. if
we need to land things into puppet-manila or anywhere else it is yet to
be landed)

For the pacemaker constraints I'm mainly just waiting for confirmation
of our current understanding.. manila-share and manila-data are a/p
pacemaker managed, everything else systemd.

thanks for any info, I will follow up and update the reviews accordingly
based on any comments,


[1] "Enable Manila integration" https://review.openstack.org/#/c/188137/
[2] "Composable manila tripleo-heat-templates side"
[3] "Adds the puppet-tripleo manifests for manila"
[4] "openstack/puppet-manila" https://github.com/openstack/puppet-manila

More information about the OpenStack-dev mailing list