[tc] [ironic] Promoting ironic to a top-level opendev project?

melanie witt melwittt at gmail.com
Mon Apr 13 21:28:39 UTC 2020

On 4/13/20 13:30, Julia Kreger wrote:
> Jumping back into the thread after taking a few days off last week and
> disconnecting.
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 3:34 AM Dmitry Tantsur <dtantsur at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:03 AM <Arkady.Kanevsky at dell.com> wrote:
>>> After reading this lengthy and enlightening threadI come back to Julia original points.
>>> 1. What are the benefits of having Ironic as part of OpenStack vs. having Ironic as part of opendev?
>>> a. I do not buy that people will use Ironic more as standalone. Biforst has been created several years back and was available as standalone Ironic. And it is not widely used.
>> It is widely used, just not among big names. Julia and I constantly encounter people using it, as well as just installing ironic standalone themselves or with kolla. And now metal3 is another standalone ironic use case completely unrelated to openstack.
> This and worse. Big names use it, but don't like to publicly talk
> about it. Or they use it in fixed process areas. Somewhere along the
> way, we stopped encouraging operators/deployers to really talk about
> their lives and the way they achieve their work. The result is FAR
> less visibility of their use, and a fast track to perception of
> non-use.

I have noticed this and found it interesting as well. Recently, I was 
trying to identify some examples of people using standalone Ironic 
because someone at work had asked me about it. I had a difficult time 
finding anything definitive even though I knew it's probably used at 
least a fair bit.

I went to the Metal3 website because I was pretty sure it uses Ironic 
but even there is says, "There are a number of great open source tools 
for bare metal host provisioning, including Ironic. Metal3.io aims to 
build on these ..." Through the use of the word "aims" I wasn't totally 
sure whether it uses Ironic or is just "inspired by" it.

However, this article makes it clear that it does in fact use it:


I know CERN uses Ironic but not sure if standalone. I haven't seen that 
detail mentioned.

I don't know if the obscurity of standalone Ironic is intentional or if 
it's just because it's an "implementation detail" that people don't 
think to mention. Either way, it makes it tough when someone is 
interested and you're trying to find them some examples to check out.

Is this related to it being "OpenStack" vs not? I'm skeptical, but maybe 
I'm wrong.

I agree with what's been said before that it seems like the main thing 
that could help is giving it its own website (that is not OpenStack 
branded) that clearly shows and features the standalone deployment. Will 
that encourage systems that build upon it and people who use it to 
explicitly mention standalone Ironic as a component? I can't guess.



More information about the openstack-discuss mailing list