Open Stack

On Mon, Jul 16, 2018 at 11:42 AM Dan Prince <dprince at redhat.com> wrote:
[...]

> The biggest downside IMO is the fact that our Pacemaker integration is
> not containerized. Nor are there any plans to finish the
> containerization of it. Pacemaker has to currently run on baremetal
> and this makes the installation of it for small dev/test setups a lot
> less desirable. It can launch containers just fine but the pacemaker
> installation itself is what concerns me for the long term.
>
> Until we have plans for containizing it I suppose I would rather see
> us keep keepalived as an option for these smaller setups. We can
> certainly change our default Undercloud to use Pacemaker (if we choose
> to do so). But having keepalived around for "lightweight" (zero or low
> footprint) installs that work is really quite desirable.
>

That's a good point, and I agree with your proposal.
Michele, what's the long term plan regarding containerized pacemaker?
-- 
Emilien Macchi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20180716/75181647/attachment.html>