[openstack-dev] [TripleO] An experiment with Ansible
pabelanger at redhat.com
Fri Jul 21 01:04:16 UTC 2017
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 06:21:22PM -0400, James Slagle wrote:
> Following up on the previous thread:
> I wanted to share some work I did around the prototype I mentioned
> there. I spent a couple days exploring this idea. I came up with a
> Python script that when run against an in progress Heat stack, will
> pull all the server and deployment metadata out of Heat and generate
> ansible playbooks/tasks from the deployments.
> Here's the code:
> And an example of what gets generated:
> If you're interested in any more detail, let me know.
> It signals the stack to completion with a dummy "ok" signal so that
> the stack will complete. You can then use ansible-playbook to apply
> the actual deloyments (in the expected order, respecting the steps
> across all roles, and in parallel across all the roles).
> Effectively, this treats Heat as nothing but a yaml cruncher. When
> using it with deployed-server, Heat doesn't actually change anything
> on an overcloud node, you're only using it to generate ansible.
> Honestly, I think I will prefer the longer term approach of using
> stack outputs. Although, I am not sure of the end goal of that work
> and if it is the same as this prototype.
Sorry if this hasn't been asked before but why don't you removed all of your
ansible-playbook logic out of heat and write them directly as native playbooks /
roles? Then instead of having a tool that reads heat to then generate the
playbooks / roles, you update heat just to directly call the playbooks? Any
dynamic information about be stored in the inventory or using the --extra-vars
on the CLI?
Basically, we do this for zuulv2.5 today in openstack-infra (dynamically
generate playbooks at run-time) and it is a large amount of work to debug
issues. In our case, we did it to quickly migrate from jenkins to ansible
(since zuulv3 completely fixes this with native playbooks) and I wouldn't
recommend it to operators to do. Not fun.
> And some of what I've done may be useful with that approach as well:
> However, I found this prototype interesting and worth exploring for a
> couple of reasons:
> Regardless of the approach we take, I wanted to explore what an end
> result might look like. Personally, this illustrates what I kind of
> had in mind for an "end goal".
> I also wanted to see if this was at all feasible. I envisioned some
> hurdles, such as deployments depending on output values of previous
> deployments, but we actually only do that in 1 place in
> tripleo-heat-templates, and I was able to workaround that. In the end
> I used it to deploy an all in one overcloud equivalent to our
> multinode CI job, so I believe it's feasible.
> It meets most of the requirements we're looking to get out of ansible.
> You can (re)apply just a single deployment, or a given deployment
> across all ResourceGroup members, or all deployments for a given
> server(s), it's easy to see what failed and for what servers, etc.
> FInally, It's something we could deliver without much (any?) change
> in tripleo-heat-templates. Although I'm not trying to say it'd be a
> small amount of work to even do that, as this is a very rough
> -- James Slagle
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request at lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
More information about the OpenStack-dev