On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Giulio Fidente <gfide...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 07/10/2017 07:06 PM, James Slagle wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:19 AM, Giulio Fidente <gfide...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> splitstack though requires changes in how the *existing* openstack >>> services are deployed and we didn't want to do that just for the purpose >>> of integrating ceph-ansible so I still believe (3) to be a sensible >>> compromise to provide the needed functionalities and not breaking the >>> existing deployment logic >> >> We might be talking about different definitions of "splitstack", as >> I'm not sure what changes are required for existing services. FWIW, I >> refer to what we do in CI with multinode to be splitstack in that the >> nodes are already provisioned and we deploy the services on those >> nodes using the same templates that we do for a "full" stack. > >> Those nodes could have just as easily been provisioned with our >> undercloud and the services deployed using 2 separate stacks, and that >> model works just as well. > > true, sorry for the misuse of the term splistack; the existing > splitstack implementation continues to work well and option (3), like > the others, can be plugged on top of it > > what I had in mind was instead the "split stack" scenario described by > Steven, where the orchestration steps are moved outside heat, this is > what we didn't have, still don't have and can be discussed at the PTG
Ok, thanks for clarifying. So when you're saying split-stack in this context, you imply just deploying a baremetal stack, then use whatever tool we want (or may develop) to deploy the service configuration. -- -- James Slagle -- __________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
