[tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Raoul Scarazzini-2
Hi everybody,
as discussed in today's TripleO meeting [1] here's a brief recap of the
tripleo-quickstart-utils topic.

### TL;DR ###

We are trying to understand whether is good or not to put the contents
of [2] somewhere else for a wider exposure.

### Long version ###

tripleo-quickstart-utils project started after splitting the
ha-validation stuff from the tripleo-quickstart-extras repo [3],
basically because the specificity of the topic was creating a leak of
reviewers.
Today this repository have three roles:

1 - validate-ha: to do ha specific tests depending on the version. This
role relies on a micro bash framework named ha-test-suite available in
the same repo, under the utils directory;

2 - stonith-config: to configure STONITH inside an HA env;

3 - instance-ha: to configure high availability for instances on the
compute nodes;

Despite of the name, this is not just a tripleo-quickstart related
project, it is also usable on every TripleO deployed environment, and is
meant to support all the TripleO OpenStack versions from kilo to pike
for all the roles it sells;

There's also a docs related to the Multi Virtual Undercloud project [4]
that explains how to have more than one virtual Undercloud on a physical
machine to manage more environments from the same place.

That's basically the meaning of the word "utils" in the name of the repo.

What I would like to understand is if you see this as something useful
that can be placed somewhere more near to upstream TripleO project, to
reach a wider audience for further contribution/evolution.

###

[1]
http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2017/tripleo.2017-05-16-14.00.log.html
[2] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils
[3]
https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras/tree/master/roles/validate-ha
[4]
https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/tree/master/docs/multi-virtual-undercloud

###

Thanks for your time,

--
Raoul Scarazzini
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Emilien Macchi-4
Hey Raoul,

Thanks for putting this up in the ML. Replying inline:

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Raoul Scarazzini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi everybody,
> as discussed in today's TripleO meeting [1] here's a brief recap of the
> tripleo-quickstart-utils topic.
>
> ### TL;DR ###
>
> We are trying to understand whether is good or not to put the contents
> of [2] somewhere else for a wider exposure.
>
> ### Long version ###
>
> tripleo-quickstart-utils project started after splitting the
> ha-validation stuff from the tripleo-quickstart-extras repo [3],
> basically because the specificity of the topic was creating a leak of
> reviewers.
> Today this repository have three roles:
>
> 1 - validate-ha: to do ha specific tests depending on the version. This
> role relies on a micro bash framework named ha-test-suite available in
> the same repo, under the utils directory;

I've looked at https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/blob/master/roles/validate-ha/tasks/main.yml
and I see it's basically a set of tasks that validates that HA is
working well on the overcloud.
Despite little things that might be adjusted (calling bash scripts
from Ansible), I think this role would be a good fit with
tripleo-validations projects, which is "a collection of Ansible
playbooks to detect and report potential issues during TripleO
deployments".

> 2 - stonith-config: to configure STONITH inside an HA env;

IMHO (and tell me if I'm wrong), this role is something you want to
apply at Day 1 during your deployment, right?
If that's the case, I think the playbooks could really live in THT
where we already have automation to deploy & configure Pacemaker with
Heat and Puppet.
Some tasks might be useful for the upgrade operations but we also have
upgrade_tasks that use Ansible, so possibly easily re-usable.

If it's more Day 2 operations, then we should investigate by creating
a new repository for tripleo with some playbooks useful for Day 2, but
AFIK we've managed to avoid that until now.

> 3 - instance-ha: to configure high availability for instances on the
> compute nodes;

Same as stonith. It sounds like some tasks done during initial
deployment to enable instakce HA and then during upgrade to disable /
enable configurations. I think it could also be done by THT like
stonith configuration.

> Despite of the name, this is not just a tripleo-quickstart related
> project, it is also usable on every TripleO deployed environment, and is
> meant to support all the TripleO OpenStack versions from kilo to pike
> for all the roles it sells;

Great, it means we could easily re-use the bits, modulo some technical
adjustments.

> There's also a docs related to the Multi Virtual Undercloud project [4]
> that explains how to have more than one virtual Undercloud on a physical
> machine to manage more environments from the same place.

I would suggest to move it to tripleo-docs, so we have a single place for doc.

> That's basically the meaning of the word "utils" in the name of the repo.
>
> What I would like to understand is if you see this as something useful
> that can be placed somewhere more near to upstream TripleO project, to
> reach a wider audience for further contribution/evolution.
versus
IIRC, everything in this repo could be moved to existing projects in
TripleO that are already productized, so little efforts would be done.

Thanks for bringing this up!

> --
> Raoul Scarazzini
> [hidden email]
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev



--
Emilien Macchi

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Bogdan Dobrelya-2
On 17.05.2017 4:01, Emilien Macchi wrote:

> Hey Raoul,
>
> Thanks for putting this up in the ML. Replying inline:
>
> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:59 PM, Raoul Scarazzini <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>> as discussed in today's TripleO meeting [1] here's a brief recap of the
>> tripleo-quickstart-utils topic.
>>
>> ### TL;DR ###
>>
>> We are trying to understand whether is good or not to put the contents
>> of [2] somewhere else for a wider exposure.
>>
>> ### Long version ###
>>
>> tripleo-quickstart-utils project started after splitting the
>> ha-validation stuff from the tripleo-quickstart-extras repo [3],

It is amusing a little bit as it looks a controversial to the
"Validations before upgrades and updates" effort. Shall we just move the
tripleo-quickstart-utils back to extras, or to validations repo and have
both issues solved? :)

>> basically because the specificity of the topic was creating a leak of
>> reviewers.
>> Today this repository have three roles:
>>
>> 1 - validate-ha: to do ha specific tests depending on the version. This
>> role relies on a micro bash framework named ha-test-suite available in
>> the same repo, under the utils directory;
>
> I've looked at https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/blob/master/roles/validate-ha/tasks/main.yml
> and I see it's basically a set of tasks that validates that HA is
> working well on the overcloud.
> Despite little things that might be adjusted (calling bash scripts
> from Ansible), I think this role would be a good fit with

A side note, this peculiar way to use ansible is a deliberate move for
automatic documenting of reproducing steps. So those jinja templated
scripts could be as well used aside of the ansible playbooks. It looked
odd to me as well, but I tend to agree that is an interesting solution
for automagic documentation builds.

> tripleo-validations projects, which is "a collection of Ansible
> playbooks to detect and report potential issues during TripleO
> deployments".
>
>> 2 - stonith-config: to configure STONITH inside an HA env;
>
> IMHO (and tell me if I'm wrong), this role is something you want to
> apply at Day 1 during your deployment, right?
> If that's the case, I think the playbooks could really live in THT
> where we already have automation to deploy & configure Pacemaker with
> Heat and Puppet.
> Some tasks might be useful for the upgrade operations but we also have
> upgrade_tasks that use Ansible, so possibly easily re-usable.
>
> If it's more Day 2 operations, then we should investigate by creating
> a new repository for tripleo with some playbooks useful for Day 2, but
> AFIK we've managed to avoid that until now.
>
>> 3 - instance-ha: to configure high availability for instances on the
>> compute nodes;
>
> Same as stonith. It sounds like some tasks done during initial
> deployment to enable instakce HA and then during upgrade to disable /
> enable configurations. I think it could also be done by THT like
> stonith configuration.
>
>> Despite of the name, this is not just a tripleo-quickstart related
>> project, it is also usable on every TripleO deployed environment, and is
>> meant to support all the TripleO OpenStack versions from kilo to pike
>> for all the roles it sells;
>
> Great, it means we could easily re-use the bits, modulo some technical
> adjustments.
>
>> There's also a docs related to the Multi Virtual Undercloud project [4]
>> that explains how to have more than one virtual Undercloud on a physical
>> machine to manage more environments from the same place.
>
> I would suggest to move it to tripleo-docs, so we have a single place for doc.
>
>> That's basically the meaning of the word "utils" in the name of the repo.
>>
>> What I would like to understand is if you see this as something useful
>> that can be placed somewhere more near to upstream TripleO project, to
>> reach a wider audience for further contribution/evolution.
> versus
> IIRC, everything in this repo could be moved to existing projects in
> TripleO that are already productized, so little efforts would be done.
>
>> ###
>>
>> [1]
>> http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/meetings/tripleo/2017/tripleo.2017-05-16-14.00.log.html
>> [2] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils
>> [3]
>> https://github.com/openstack/tripleo-quickstart-extras/tree/master/roles/validate-ha
>> [4]
>> https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/tree/master/docs/multi-virtual-undercloud
>>
>> ###
>>
>> Thanks for your time,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up!
>
>> --
>> Raoul Scarazzini
>> [hidden email]
>>
>> __________________________________________________________________________
>> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
>> Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>
>
>


--
Best regards,
Bogdan Dobrelya,
Irc #bogdando

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Raoul Scarazzini-2
In reply to this post by Emilien Macchi-4
On 17/05/2017 04:01, Emilien Macchi wrote:
> Hey Raoul,
> Thanks for putting this up in the ML. Replying inline:

Sorry for the long delay between the answers, a lot of things on going.

[...]
> I've looked at https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/blob/master/roles/validate-ha/tasks/main.yml
> and I see it's basically a set of tasks that validates that HA is
> working well on the overcloud.
> Despite little things that might be adjusted (calling bash scripts
> from Ansible), I think this role would be a good fit with
> tripleo-validations projects, which is "a collection of Ansible
> playbooks to detect and report potential issues during TripleO
> deployments".

Moving this stuff in the tripleo-validations project would impose a
massive change in the approach HA validation is made today.
The bash script way is something that was used to make someone able to
do the validation even without ansible. Anyone could write his test by
just adding the script inside the test (and recovery) dir.
This is the tech reason behind the choice, and today this is doing great
as it is.
So I think that until I can reserve a slot to make this "port" this can
stay where it is today.

>> 2 - stonith-config: to configure STONITH inside an HA env;
[...]> Great, it means we could easily re-use the bits, modulo some
technical
> adjustments.

Since we're moving into integrating stonith and (hopefully) instance HA
directly inside tripleo, then this can stay where it is today, it would
be useless giving effort in putting this since soon we will have the
same directly inside tripleo.

>> There's also a docs related to the Multi Virtual Undercloud project [4]
>> that explains how to have more than one virtual Undercloud on a physical
>> machine to manage more environments from the same place.
> I would suggest to move it to tripleo-docs, so we have a single place for doc.

Action item for me here: move this document under tripleo-docs. I'm
already preparing a review for this.

[...]
> IIRC, everything in this repo could be moved to existing projects in
> TripleO that are already productized, so little efforts would be done.
[...]> Thanks for bringing this up!

Agreed.

Bye,

--
Raoul Scarazzini
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Raoul Scarazzini-2
In reply to this post by Bogdan Dobrelya-2
On 17/05/2017 10:47, Bogdan Dobrelya wrote:
[...]> It is amusing a little bit as it looks a controversial to the
> "Validations before upgrades and updates" effort. Shall we just move the
> tripleo-quickstart-utils back to extras, or to validations repo and have
> both issues solved? :)

The reason why this was put outside extras was that basically no one was
looking at the reviews, since the topic was so specific that no one had
the opportunity to test the modifications on the field.
So we decided to move it outside, to be quick and independent on the
reviews.

[...]
> A side note, this peculiar way to use ansible is a deliberate move for
> automatic documenting of reproducing steps. So those jinja templated
> scripts could be as well used aside of the ansible playbooks. It looked
> odd to me as well, but I tend to agree that is an interesting solution
> for automagic documentation builds.

I need to understand in depth this automatic documenting you're writing
about. Can you give some tip to fully comprehend what you wrote?

Many thanks, and sorry for the long delay between the answers.

--
Raoul Scarazzini
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Emilien Macchi-4
In reply to this post by Raoul Scarazzini-2
On Tue, Jun 6, 2017 at 8:12 AM, Raoul Scarazzini <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17/05/2017 04:01, Emilien Macchi wrote:
>> Hey Raoul,
>> Thanks for putting this up in the ML. Replying inline:
>
> Sorry for the long delay between the answers, a lot of things on going.
>
> [...]
>> I've looked at https://github.com/redhat-openstack/tripleo-quickstart-utils/blob/master/roles/validate-ha/tasks/main.yml
>> and I see it's basically a set of tasks that validates that HA is
>> working well on the overcloud.
>> Despite little things that might be adjusted (calling bash scripts
>> from Ansible), I think this role would be a good fit with
>> tripleo-validations projects, which is "a collection of Ansible
>> playbooks to detect and report potential issues during TripleO
>> deployments".
>
> Moving this stuff in the tripleo-validations project would impose a
> massive change in the approach HA validation is made today.
> The bash script way is something that was used to make someone able to
> do the validation even without ansible. Anyone could write his test by
> just adding the script inside the test (and recovery) dir.
> This is the tech reason behind the choice, and today this is doing great
> as it is.
> So I think that until I can reserve a slot to make this "port" this can
> stay where it is today.

It's unclear to me if yes or no you're willing to move this bash
script into tripleo-validations.

>>> 2 - stonith-config: to configure STONITH inside an HA env;
> [...]> Great, it means we could easily re-use the bits, modulo some
> technical
>> adjustments.
>
> Since we're moving into integrating stonith and (hopefully) instance HA
> directly inside tripleo, then this can stay where it is today, it would
> be useless giving effort in putting this since soon we will have the
> same directly inside tripleo.

Ok, so forget this one if the problem is solved within TripleO.

>>> There's also a docs related to the Multi Virtual Undercloud project [4]
>>> that explains how to have more than one virtual Undercloud on a physical
>>> machine to manage more environments from the same place.
>> I would suggest to move it to tripleo-docs, so we have a single place for doc.
>
> Action item for me here: move this document under tripleo-docs. I'm
> already preparing a review for this.
>
> [...]
>> IIRC, everything in this repo could be moved to existing projects in
>> TripleO that are already productized, so little efforts would be done.
> [...]> Thanks for bringing this up!
>
> Agreed.
>
> Bye,
>
> --
> Raoul Scarazzini
> [hidden email]



--
Emilien Macchi

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [tripleo] Future of the tripleo-quickstart-utils project

Raoul Scarazzini-2
On 13/06/2017 21:14, Emilien Macchi wrote:
[...]>> Moving this stuff in the tripleo-validations project would impose a

>> massive change in the approach HA validation is made today.
>> The bash script way is something that was used to make someone able to
>> do the validation even without ansible. Anyone could write his test by
>> just adding the script inside the test (and recovery) dir.
>> This is the tech reason behind the choice, and today this is doing great
>> as it is.
>> So I think that until I can reserve a slot to make this "port" this can
>> stay where it is today.
> It's unclear to me if yes or no you're willing to move this bash
> script into tripleo-validations.

Mine it's basically a yes, I just need to figure out a coherent
migration path. I don't see this as a thing I can do one day to another,
but I'll start working on it.

[...]>> Since we're moving into integrating stonith and (hopefully)
instance HA
>> directly inside tripleo, then this can stay where it is today, it would
>> be useless giving effort in putting this since soon we will have the
>> same directly inside tripleo.
> Ok, so forget this one if the problem is solved within TripleO.

Yes, this seems reasonable.

[...]
>>> I would suggest to move it to tripleo-docs, so we have a single place for doc.
>> Action item for me here: move this document under tripleo-docs. I'm
>> already preparing a review for this.

So I finally updated a review [1] for the documentation, it took quite a
bit to adapt it to the audience of the tripleo-docs project, but it now
seems fine... at least to me :)

[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/474225/

Many thanks for your time Emilien.

--
Raoul Scarazzini
[hidden email]

__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: [hidden email]?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev