On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Giulio Fidente <gfide...@redhat.com> wrote: > On 05/07/2015 07:35 PM, Dan Prince wrote: >> >> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 17:36 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote: >>> >>> On 05/07/2015 03:31 PM, Dan Prince wrote: >>>> >>>> On Thu, 2015-05-07 at 11:22 +0200, Giulio Fidente wrote: > > > [...] > >>> on the other hand, we can very well get rid of the ifs today by >>> deploying *with* pacemaker in single node scenario as well! we already >>> have EnablePacemaker always set to true for dev purposes, even on single >>> node >> >> >> EnablePacemaker is set to 'false' by default. IMO it should be opt-in: >> >> >> http://git.openstack.org/cgit/openstack/tripleo-heat-templates/commit/?id=1f7426a014f0f83ace4d2b3531014e22f7778b4d > > > sure that param is false by default, but one can enable it and deploy with > pacemaker on single node, and in fact many people do this for dev purposes > > before that change, we were even running CI on single node with pacemaker so > as a matter of fact, one could get rid of the conditionals in the manifest > today by just assuming there will be pacemaker
This is the direction I thought we were moving. When you deploy a single controller, it is an HA cluster of 1. As opposed to just not using pacemaker entirely. This is the model we did previously for HA and I thought it worked well in that it got everyone testing and using the same code path. I thought the EnablePacemaker parameter was more or less a temporary thing to get us over the initial disruption of moving things over to pacemaker. > > this said, I prefer myself to leave some "air" for a (future?) non-pacemaker > scenario, but I still wanted to point out the reason why the conditionals > are there in the first place -- -- 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
