On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:06 AM Mooney, Sean K sean.k.mooney@intel.com
wrote:
Hi
If we choose to use bifrost to deploy ironic standalone I think combining
kevins previous
suggestion of modifying the bifrost install playbook with Steve Dake’s
suggestion of creating a series
of supervisord configs for running each of the service is a reasonable
approch.
I am currently look to scope how much effort would be required to split
the main task in the bifrost-ironic-install role
https://github.com/openstack/bifrost/blob/master/playbooks/roles/bifrost-ironic-install/tasks/main.yml
into 3 files which would be included in the main.yml:
Installcomponets.yml (executed when skipinstall is not defiend)
Bootstrapcomponents.yml (executed when skipbootstrap is not defiend)
Startcomponents.yml (executed when skipstart is not defiend)
By default all three would be executed maintain the current behavior of
bifrost today,.
During the kolla build of the biforst image the
https://github.com/openstack/bifrost/blob/master/playbooks/install.yaml
would be in
run with skipbootstrap and skipstart defined as true so only
Install_componets.yml will be executed by the main task.
This would install all software components of bifrost/ironic without
preforming configuration or starting the services.
At deployment time during the bootstrap phase we would spawn an instance
of the biforst-base container and invoke
https://github.com/openstack/bifrost/blob/master/playbooks/install.yaml
with skipinstall and skipstart defined executing Bootstrap_components.yml
Bootstrap_components.yml would encapsulate all logic related to creating
the ironic db(running migration scripts) and generating the configuration
Files for the biforst components.
Finally in the start phase we have 3 options
a) Spawn an instance of the bifrost-supervisor container and use
supervisord to run the bifrost/ironic services (fat container)
b) Spawn an instance of the bifrost-base container and Invoke
https://github.com/openstack/bifrost/blob/master/playbooks/install.yaml
with
skipinstall and skipbootstrap and allow biforst to star the
services.(fat container)
c) Spawn a series of containers each running a single service
sharing the required volumes to allow them to communicate (app containers)
I would welcome any input for the bifrost community on this especially
related to the decomposition of the main.yml into 3 phases.
Im hoping to do a quick poc this week to see how easy it is to do this
decomposition.
I would also like to call out upfront that depending on the scope of this
item I may have to withdraw from contributing to it.
I work in intel’s network platforms group so enabling baremetal
installation is somewhat outside the standard
Work our division undertakes. If we can reuse bifrost to do most of the
heavy lifting of creating the bifrost container and deploying ironic then
The scope of creating the bifrost container is small enough that I can
justify spending some of my time working on it. if it requires
Significant changes to bifrost or rework of kolla’s ironic support then I
will have to step back and focus more on feature that are closer aligned to
Our teams core networking and orchestration focus such as enhancing kolla
to be able to deploy ovs with dpdk and/or opendaylight which are
Also items I would like to contribute to this cycle. I don’t want to
commit to delivering this feature unless I know I will have the time to
work on
It but am happy to help where I can.
@kevin some replies to your questions inline.
Regards
Sean.
From: Fox, Kevin M [mailto:Kevin.Fox@pnnl.gov]
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 9:17 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
I was under the impression bifrost was 2 things, one, an
installer/configurator of ironic in a stand alone mode, and two, a
management tool for getting machines deployed without needing nova using
ironic.
[Mooney, Sean K] yes this is correct, bifrost does provide both install
playbooks for deploying ironic in standalone mode and a series of playbooks
for dynamically enrolling node in ironic and dynamically deploy imanges to
host
Without requiring nova. Bifrost also provides intergration with Disk
image builder to generate machine images if desired.
The first use case seems like it should just be handled by enhancing
kolla's ironic container stuff to directly to handle the use case, doing
things the kolla way. This seems much cleaner to me. Doing it at runtime
looses most of the benefits of doing it in a container at all.
[Mooney, Sean K] I was not suggestiong doing the installation at runtime.
Option 2 and 3 suggested spawning a container as part of the build in
which the install playbook would be run.
That container would then be stopped and exported to form the base image
for the bifrost continer(s). The base image (bifrost-postinstall) would
either be use to create a fat containter using an init system such as
supervisord to run each of the services
*or be used as the base image for a set of bifrost container each of which
ran a single component. *
The second adds a lot of value I think, and thats what the bifrost
container should be?
[Mooney, Sean K] yes it does and I think it can be reused regarless or
how we decide to deploy ironic.
Thanks,
Kevin
From: Mooney, Sean K [sean.k.mooney@intel.com]
Sent: Friday, May 06, 2016 12:54 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
From: Steven Dake (stdake) [mailto:stdake@cisco.com stdake@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 6:56 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
Sean,
Thanks for taking this on :) I didn't know you had such an AR :)
*[Mooney, Sean K] well if other want to do the work that ok with me too
but I was planning on deploying bifrost *
At home again anyway so I taught I might as well try to automate the
process while im at it.
*From: *"Mooney, Sean K" sean.k.mooney@intel.com
*Reply-To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage
questions)" openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org
*Date: *Friday, May 6, 2016 at 10:14 AM
*To: *"OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <
openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>
*Subject: *[openstack-dev] [kolla] [bifrost] bifrost container.
Hi everyone.
Following up on my AR from the kolla host repository session
https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/kolla-newton-summit-kolla-kolla-host-repo
I started working on creating a kolla bifrost container.
Are some initial success it have hit a roadblock with the current install
playbook provided by bifrost.
In particular the install playbook both installs the ironic dependencies
and configure and runs the services.
What I'd do here is ignore the install playbook and duplicate what it
installs. We don't want to install at run time, we want to install at
build time. You weren't clear if that is what your doing.
*[Mooney, Sean K] that is certainly an option but bifrost is an installer
for ironic and its supporting service. Not using its installation scripts
significantly reduces the value of *
*Integrating with bifrost vs fixing the existing ironic support in kolla
and using that to provision the undercloud. *
The reason we would ignore the install playbook is because it runs the
services. We need to run the services in a different way. This will (as
we discussed at ODS) be a fat container on the underlord cloud – which I
guess is ok. I'd recommend not using systemd, as that will break systemd
systems badly. Instead use a different init system, such as supervisord.
*[Mooney, Sean K] if we don’t use the bifrost install playbook then yes
supervisord would be a good choice for the init system. *
Looking at the official centos docker image
https://hub.docker.com/_/centos/ https://hub.docker.com/_/centos/ they
do provided instruction for running systemd containers tough I have had
issues with this in the past.
The installation of ironic and its dependencies would not be a problem but
the ansible service module is not cable able of starting the
Infrastructure services (mysql,rabbit …) without a running init system
which is not present during the docker build.
When I created a biforst container in the past is spawned a Ubuntu upstart
container then docker exec into the container and ran
Bifrost install script. This works because the init system is running and
the service module could test and start the relevant services.
This leave me with 3 paths forward.
I can continue to try and make the bifrost install script work
with the kolla build system by using sed to modify the install playbook or
try start systemd during the docker build.
I can use the kolla build system to build only part of the image
a. the bifrost-base image would be build with the kolla build
system without running the bifrost playbook. This
would allow the existing allow the existing features of the build system
such as adding headers/footers to be used.
b. After the base image is built by kolla I can spawn an instance of
bifrost-base with systemd running
c. I can then connect to this running container and run the bifrost
install script unmodified.
d. Once it is finished I can stop the container and export it to an
image “bifros-postinstall”.
e. This can either be used directly (fat container) or as the base
image for other container that run each of the ironic services (thin
containers)
- I can skip the kolla build system entirely and create a
script/playbook that will build the bifrost container similar to 2.
4.
Make a supervisord set of init scripts and make the docker file do what it
was intended – install the files. This is kind of a mashup of your 1-3
ideas. Good thinking :)
While option 1 would fully use the kolla build system It is my least
favorite as it is both hacky and complicated to make work.
Docker really was not designed to run systemd as part of docker build.
For option 2 and 3 I can provide a single playbook/script that will fully
automate the build but the real question I have
Is should I use the kolla build system to make the base image or not.
If anyone else has suggestion on how I can progress please let me know
but currently I am leaning towards option 2.
If you have questions about my suggestion to use supervisord, hit me up on
IRC. Ideally we would also contribute these init scripts back into bifrost
code base assuming they want them, which I think they would. Nobody will
run systemd in a container, and we all have an interest in seeing BiFrost
as the standard bare metal deployment model inside or outside of containers.
[Mooney, Sean K] I have briefly used supervisord before for a pet
project https://github.com/SeanMooney/docker-devstack
https://github.com/SeanMooney/docker-devstack to create a container for
running devstack so it did hot pollute my host.
supervisord is a nice tool. Im just about to head home for the weekend
but I might grab you on irc on Monday to follow up.
Regards
-steve
The only other option I see would be to not use a container and either
install biforst on the host or in a vm.
GROAN – one advantage containers provide us is not mucking up the host OS
with a bajillion dependencies. I'd like to keep that part of Kolla intact
:)
[Mooney, Sean K] yes I would prefer not to break that too. This was
basically the option of we don’t actually do the integration and instead
just tell
The user how to use bifrost to do the deployment but leave it up to them
do decide how to install it. so for me that was plan Z so we have a couple
of letter
Go through first.
These would essentially be a no op for kolla as we would simply have to
document how to install bifrost which is covered
Quite well as part of the bifrost project.
Regards
Sean.
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: OpenStack-dev-request@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev