Excerpts from Zane Bitter's message of 2013-07-26 06:37:09 -0700: > On 25/07/13 19:07, Bartosz Górski wrote: > > We want to start from something simple. At the beginning we are assuming > > no dependencies between resources from different region. Our first use > > case (the one on the wikipage) uses this assumptions. So this is why it > > can be easily split on two separate single region templates. > > > > Our goal is to support dependencies between resources from different > > regions. Our second use case (I will add it with more details to the > > wikipage soon) is similar to deploying two instances (app server + db > > server) wordpress in two different regions (app server in the first > > region and db server in the second). Regions will be connected to each > > other via VPN connection . In this case configuration of app server > > depends on db server. We need to know IP address of created DB server to > > properly configure App server. It forces us to wait with creating app > > server until db server will be created. > > That's still a fairly simple case that could be handled by a pair of > OS::Heat::Stack resources (one provides a DBServerIP output it is passed > as a parameter to the other region using {'Fn::GetAtt': > ['FirstRegionStack', 'Outputs.DBServerIP']}. But it's possible to > imagine circumstances where that approach is at least suboptimal (e.g. > when creating the actual DB server is comparatively quick, but we have > to wait for the entire template, which might be slow). >
If you break that stack up into two stacks, db and "other slow stuff" then you can get the Output of the db stack earlier, so that is a solvable problem. > > More complicated use case with load balancers and more regions are also > > in ours minds. > > Good to know, thanks. I'll look forward to reading more about it on the > wiki. > > What I'd like to avoid is a situation where anything _appears_ to be > possible (Nova server and Cinder volume in different regions? Sure! > Connect 'em together? Sure!), and the user only finds out later that it > doesn't work. It would be much better to structure the templates in such > a way that only things that are legitimate are expressible. That's not > an achievable goal, but IMO we want to be much closer to the latter than > the former. > These are all predictable limitations and can be handled at the parsing level. You will know as soon as you have template + params whether or not that cinder volume in region A can be attached to the nova server in region B. I'm still convinced that none of this matters if you rely on a single Heat in one of the regions. The whole point of multi region is to eliminate a SPOF. _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev