Hello, I agree with Vladimir - the idea of online repos is a right way to move. In 2015 I believe we can ignore this "poor Internet connection" reason, and simplify both Fuel and UX. Moreover, take a look at Linux distributives - most of them fetch needed packages from the Internet during installation, not from CD/DVD. The netboot installers are popular, I can't even remember when was the last time I install my Debian from the DVD-1 - I use netboot installer for years.
Thanks, Igor On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:58 AM, Yaguang Tang <yt...@mirantis.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:29 AM, Alex Schultz <aschu...@mirantis.com> wrote: >> >> >> Hey Vladimir, >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> 1) There won't be such things in like [1] and [2], thus less >>>>> complicated flow, less errors, easier to maintain, easier to understand, >>>>> easier to troubleshoot >>>>> 2) If one wants to have local mirror, the flow is the same as in case >>>>> of upstream repos (fuel-createmirror), which is clrear for a user to >>>>> understand. >>>> >>>> >>>> From the issues I've seen, fuel-createmirror isn't very straight >>>> forward and has some issues making it a bad UX. >>> >>> >>> I'd say the whole approach of having such tool as fuel-createmirror is a >>> way too naive. Reliable internet connection is totally up to network >>> engineering rather than deployment. Even using proxy is much better that >>> creating local mirror. But this discussion is totally out of the scope of >>> this letter. Currently, we have fuel-createmirror and it is pretty >>> straightforward (installed as rpm, has just a couple of command line >>> options). The quality of this script is also out of the scope of this >>> thread. BTW we have plans to improve it. >> >> >> >> Fair enough, I just wanted to raise the UX issues around these types of >> things as they should go into the decision making process. >> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Many people still associate ISO with MOS, but it is not true when using >>>>> package based delivery approach. >>>>> >>>>> It is easy to define necessary repos during deployment and thus it is >>>>> easy to control what exactly is going to be installed on slave nodes. >>>>> >>>>> What do you guys think of it? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Reliance on internet connectivity has been an issue since 6.1. For many >>>> large users, complete access to the internet is not available or not >>>> desired. If we want to continue down this path, we need to improve the >>>> tools to setup the local mirror and properly document what urls/ports/etc >>>> need to be available for the installation of openstack and any mirror >>>> creation process. The ideal thing is to have an all-in-one CD similar to a >>>> live cd that allows a user to completely try out fuel wherever they want >>>> with out further requirements of internet access. If we don't want to >>>> continue with that, we need to do a better job around providing the tools >>>> for a user to get up and running in a timely fashion. Perhaps providing an >>>> net-only iso and an all-included iso would be a better solution so people >>>> will have their expectations properly set up front? >>> >>> >>> Let me explain why I think having local MOS mirror by default is bad: >>> 1) I don't see any reason why we should treat MOS repo other way than >>> all other online repos. A user sees on the settings tab the list of repos >>> one of which is local by default while others are online. It can make user a >>> little bit confused, can't it? A user can be also confused by the fact, that >>> some of the repos can be cloned locally by fuel-createmirror while others >>> can't. That is not straightforward, NOT fuel-createmirror UX. >> >> >> >> I agree. The process should be the same and it should be just another >> repo. It doesn't mean we can't include a version on an ISO as part of a >> release. Would it be better to provide the mirror on the ISO but not have >> it enabled by default for a release so that we can gather user feedback on >> this? This would include improved documentation and possibly allowing a user >> to choose their preference so we can collect metrics? >> >> >>> 2) Having local MOS mirror by default makes things much more convoluted. >>> We are forced to have several directories with predefined names and we are >>> forced to manage these directories in nailgun, in upgrade script, etc. Why? >>> 3) When putting MOS mirror on ISO, we make people think that ISO is equal >>> to MOS, which is not true. It is possible to implement really flexible >>> delivery scheme, but we need to think of these things as they are >>> independent. >> >> >> >> I'm not sure what you mean by this. Including a point in time copy on an >> ISO as a release is a common method of distributing software. Is this a >> messaging thing that needs to be addressed? Perhaps I'm not familiar with >> people referring to the ISO as being MOS. >> >> >>> For large users it is easy to build custom ISO and put there what they >>> need but first we need to have simple working scheme clear for everyone. I >>> think dealing with all repos the same way is what is gonna makes things >>> simpler. >>> >> >> >> Who is going to build a custom ISO? How does one request that? What >> resources are consumed by custom ISO creation process/request? Does this >> scale? >> >> >>> >>> This thread is not about internet connectivity, it is about aligning >>> things. >>> >> >> You are correct in that this thread is not explicitly about internet >> connectivity, but they are related. Any changes to remove a local repository >> and only provide an internet based solution makes internet connectivity >> something that needs to be included in the discussion. I just want to make >> sure that we properly evaluate this decision based on end user feedback not >> because we don't want to manage this from a developer standpoint. > > > > +1, whatever the changes is, please keep Fuel as a tool that can deploy > without Internet access, this is part of reason that people like it and it's > better that other tools. >> >> >> -Alex >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Yaguang Tang > Technical Support, Mirantis China > > Phone: +86 15210946968 > > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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
