Open Stack

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Adam Spiers <aspiers at suse.com> wrote:

> Anyway, big thanks to Alex for her recent reviews (which are high on
> my TODO list once my current emergency is dealt with), and also +1 to
> most of what Andrew proposed.  The only bit I think is premature with
> regards to paring things down would be removing the description of
> controlling OpenStack's active/active services (e.g. APIs) via
> Pacemaker:
>
> On 12/6/16, 3:53 AM, "Andrew Beekhof" <abeekhof at redhat.com> wrote:
>> Most OpenStack services no longer need any hand-holding from a
>> cluster manager and don't need to be covered
>
> Even though I agree with most of the details of the next-generation
> architecture Andrew is proposing (and I've had many worthwhile
> discussions with him on it), I believe there are still plenty of
> scenarios in which it's still valid to have these services managed by
> Pacemaker.  So I'd prefer to keep that stuff covered by the guide
> until such a point that the next-generation architecture is widely
> adopted and well proven.

Nod, we've talked about that in the past and I agree.

What I was intending to convey was that I don't think we need to spend
much time on them, certainly not a chapter or section each.
Probably a single "If you want the cluster to manage OpenStack
services" section with a short description and command listing would
be sufficient.
Maybe as a peer to a section on how nagios or similar might fit into
the architecture.

The biggest thing to decide for that section is OCF vs. systemd agents.