Open Stack

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Alexandra Settle <a.settle at outlook.com> wrote:
> Thanks guys ☺
>
> Andrew – I think it would be highly beneficial if you could detail your thoughts in a specification so the whole community can see. I can definitely offer my time to help you work on this. Perhaps we could sync up one (my morning/your afternoon) time and get it out and ready? I can’t imagine the whole process would take longer than an hour.

Sounds good. I'll try and catch you on IRC around 09:30 UTC today if
thats convenient

>
> That way we can get some feedback on the proposal, and we can have some direction for end of Ocata/beginning of Pike.
>
> On 12/7/16, 1:45 AM, "Andrew Beekhof" <abeekhof at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>