Just to follow up, CI is passing for the three patches outstanding and the last one has a release note for the overall feature. The trick to getting CI to pass was to introduce a new variant Controller role for when we actually deploy with CephNFS and the VIP for the server on the StorageNFS network. Using the variant controller role and '-n' with network_data_ganesha.yaml (1) enables the new feature to work correctly while (2) making the new feature entirely optional so that current CI runs without being affected by it.
I think the three outstanding patches here are ready to merge: https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:bp/nfs-ganesha I want to get them in so they'll show in downstream puddles for QE but my full attention will immediately turn to upstream TripleO CI and doc for this new functionality. In that regard I *think* we'll need Dan Sneddon's work here: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/523638 so that actual deployment of the StorageNFS network doesn't have to involve copying and editing network/config/*/{ceph,compute,controller}/.yaml as done in the DNM patch that I've used for testing actual integration of the feature here: https://review.openstack.org/533767 All said, this one seems to be a good poster child for composable roles + composable networks! -- Tom Barron On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 2:48 PM, Emilien Macchi <emil...@redhat.com> wrote: > I agree this would be a great addition but I'm worried about the > patches which right now don't pass the check pipeline. > Also I don't see any release notes explaining the changes to our users > and it's supposed to improve user experience... > > Please add release notes, make CI passing and we'll probably grant it for > FFE. > > On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 8:34 AM, Giulio Fidente <gfide...@redhat.com> > wrote: > > hi, > > > > I would like to request an FFE for the integration of nfs_ganesha, which > > will provide a better user experience to manila users > > > > This work was slown down by a few factors: > > > > - it depended on the migration of tripleo to the newer Ceph version > > (luminous), which happened during the queens cycle > > > > - it depended on some additional functionalities to be implemented in > > ceph-ansible which were only recently been made available to tripleo/ci > > > > - it proposes the addition of on an additional (and optional) network > > (storagenfs) so that guests don't need connectivity to the ceph frontend > > network to be able to use the cephfs shares > > > > The submissions are on review and partially testable in CI [1]. If > accepted, > > I'd like to reassign the blueprint [2] back to the queens cycle, as it > was > > initially. > > > > Thanks > > > > 1. https://review.openstack.org/#/q/status:open+topic:bp/nfs-ganesha > > 2. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/tripleo/+spec/nfs-ganesha > > -- > > Giulio Fidente > > GPG KEY: 08D733BA > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > ______________ > > 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 > > > > -- > Emilien Macchi > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
