Open Stack

On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Raoul Scarazzini <rasca at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 17/05/2017 04:01, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> Hey Raoul,
>> Thanks for putting this up in the ML. Replying inline:
>
> Sorry for the long delay between the answers, a lot of things on going.
>
> [...]
>> I've looked at https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/blob/master/roles/validate-ha/tasks/main.yml
>> and I see it's basically a set of tasks that validates that HA is
>> working well on the overcloud.
>> Despite little things that might be adjusted (calling bash scripts
>> from Ansible), I think this role would be a good fit with
>> tripleo-validations projects, which is "a collection of Ansible
>> playbooks to detect and report potential issues during TripleO
>> deployments".
>
> Moving this stuff in the tripleo-validations project would impose a
> massive change in the approach HA validation is made today.
> The bash script way is something that was used to make someone able to
> do the validation even without ansible. Anyone could write his test by
> just adding the script inside the test (and recovery) dir.
> This is the tech reason behind the choice, and today this is doing great
> as it is.
> So I think that until I can reserve a slot to make this "port" this can
> stay where it is today.

It's unclear to me if yes or no you're willing to move this bash
script into tripleo-validations.

>>> 2 - stonith-config: to configure STONITH inside an HA env;
> [...]> Great, it means we could easily re-use the bits, modulo some
> technical
>> adjustments.
>
> Since we're moving into integrating stonith and (hopefully) instance HA
> directly inside tripleo, then this can stay where it is today, it would
> be useless giving effort in putting this since soon we will have the
> same directly inside tripleo.

Ok, so forget this one if the problem is solved within TripleO.

>>> There's also a docs related to the Multi Virtual Undercloud project [4]
>>> that explains how to have more than one virtual Undercloud on a physical
>>> machine to manage more environments from the same place.
>> I would suggest to move it to tripleo-docs, so we have a single place for doc.
>
> Action item for me here: move this document under tripleo-docs. I'm
> already preparing a review for this.
>
> [...]
>> IIRC, everything in this repo could be moved to existing projects in
>> TripleO that are already productized, so little efforts would be done.
> [...]> Thanks for bringing this up!
>
> Agreed.
>
> Bye,
>
> --
> Raoul Scarazzini
> rasca at redhat.com



-- 
Emilien Macchi