Open Stack

Please see inline.

___________________________________________________________________
Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer
GoDaddy







On 10/7/15, 6:12 AM, "Tim Bell" <Tim.Bell at cern.ch> wrote:

>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Daniel P. Berrange [mailto:berrange at redhat.com]
>> Sent: 07 October 2015 13:25
>> To: Tim Bell <Tim.Bell at cern.ch>
>> Cc: Sean Dague <sean at dague.net>; OpenStack Development Mailing List
>> (not for usage questions) <openstack-dev at lists.openstack.org>; openstack-
>> operators at lists.openstack.org
>> Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [openstack-dev] [nova] Min libvirt for
>> Mitaka is 0.10.2 and suggest Nxxx uses 1.1.1
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 11:13:12AM +0000, Tim Bell wrote:
>> >
>> > Although Red Hat is no longer supporting RHEL 6 after Icehouse, a
>> > number of users such as GoDaddy and CERN are using Software
>> > Collections to run the Python 2.7 code.
>>
>> Do you have any educated guess as to when you might switch to deploying
>> new OpenStack version exclusively on RHEL 7 ? I understand such a switch is
>> likely to take a while so you can test its performance and reliability and 
>> so on,
>> but I'm assuming you'll eventually switch ?
>>
>
>I think we'll be all 7 by spring next year (i.e. when we install Liberty). The 
>software collections work is not for the faint hearted and 7 brings lots of 
>good things with it for operations so we want to get there as soon as 
>possible. Thus, I think we'd be fine with a change in Mitaka (especially given 
>the points you mention below).

Like CERN, we don't currently plan on doing the software collections + venv trick past kilo.  We plan on having all of our HV's running cent 7+ before we move to liberty.  That said, Liberty should still technically work under CentOS 6...

I am ok dropping support for RHEL/CentOS 6 in N.

>
>> > However, since this modification would only take place when Mitaka
>> > gets released, this would realistically give those sites a year to
>> > complete migration to RHEL/CentOS 7 assuming they are running from one
>> > of the community editions.
>> >
>> > What does the 1.1.1 version bring that is the motivation for raising
>> > the limit ?
>>
>> If we require 1.1.1 we could have unconditional support for
>>
>>  - Hot-unplug of PCI devices (needs 1.1.1)
>>  - Live snapshots (needs 1.0.0)
>>  - Live volume snapshotting (needs 1.1.1)
>>  - Disk sector discard support (needs 1.0.6)
>>  - Hyper-V clock tunables (needs 1.0.0 & 1.1.0)
>>
>> If you lack those versions, in case of hotunplug, and live volume snapshots
>> we just refuse the corresponding API call. With live snapshots we fallback 
>> to
>> non-live snapshots. For disk discard and hyperv clock we just run with
>> degraded functionality. The lack of hyperv clock tunables means Windows
>> guests will have unreliable time keeping and are likely to suffer random
>> BSOD, which I think is a particularly important issue.
>>
>> And of course we remove a bunch of conditional logic from Nova which
>> simplifies the code paths and removes code paths which rarely get testing
>> coverage.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Daniel
>> --
>> |: http://berrange.com      -o-    http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ 
>> :|
>> |: http://libvirt.org              -o-             http://virt-manager.org 
>> :|
>> |: http://autobuild.org       -o-         http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ 
>> :|
>> |: http://entangle-photo.org       -o-       http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc 
>> :|