Open Stack

Hi

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 10:27:20AM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> So progressing with the 'and folk that want to use packages can' arc,
> we're running into some friction.
> 
> I've copied -operators in on this because its very relevant IMO to operators :)
> 
> So far:
>  - some packages use different usernames
>  - some put things in different places (and all of them use different
> places to the bare metal ephemeral device layout which requires
> /mnt/).
>  - possibly more in future.
> 
> Now, obviously its a 'small matter of code' to deal with this, but the
> impact on ops folk isn't so small. There are basically two routes that
> I can see:
> 
> # A
>  - we have a reference layout - install from OpenStack git / pypi
> releases; this is what we will gate on, and can document.
>  - and then each distro (both flavor of Linux and also possibly things
> like Fuel that distribution OpenStack) is different - install on X,
> get some delta vs reference.
>  -> we need multiple manuals describing how to operate and diagnose
> issues in such a deployment, which is a matrix that overlays platform
> differences the user selects like 'Fedora' and 'Xen'.
I agree with what James already said here. It probably not TripleO's job to
document all that.  A good documentation for the reference layout should be the
goal.

And currently the differences aren't all that big I think. And for some of them
we already have good solutions (like e.g. the os-svc-* tools). There is room
for improvement in handling of the differences for usernames, though :)

> # B
>  - we have one layout, with one set of install paths, usernames
>  - package installs vs source installs make no difference - we coerce
> the package into reference upstream shape as part of installing it.
Unless I am completely missunderstanding your proposal I think this would void
many of the reasons why people would choose to install from packages in the
first place.

>  - documentation is then identical for all TripleO installs, except
> the platform differences (as above - systemd on Fedora, upstart on
> Ubuntu, Xen vs KVM)
> 
> B seems much more useful to our ops users - less subtly wrong docs, we
> avoid bugs where tools we write upstream make bad assumptions,
> experience operating a TripleO deployed OpenStack is more widely
> applicable (applies to all such installs, not just those that happened
> to use the same package source).
I am propably repeating much of what James already said already. But I think an
operator that makes the decision to do a package base Triplo installation does
so e.g. because he is familiar with the tools and conventions of the specific
distro/provider of the packages he choose. And probably wants TripleO to be
consistent with that. And yes, with the decision for packages, he decides to
differ from the reference layout.

> I see this much like the way Nova abstracts out trivial Hypervisor
> differences to let you 'nova boot' anywhere, that we should be hiding
> these incidental (vs fundamental capability) differences.
> 
> What say ye all?
> 
> -Robv

-- 
regards,
    Ralf