From: Sam Yaple <sam...@yaple.net<mailto:sam...@yaple.net>> Reply-To: "s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>" <s...@yaple.net<mailto:s...@yaple.net>> Date: Saturday, September 12, 2015 at 11:01 PM To: Steven Dake <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> Cc: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)" <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>> Subject: Re: [kolla] Followup to review in gerrit relating to RHOS + RDO types
On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 12:39 AM, Steven Dake (stdake) <std...@cisco.com<mailto:std...@cisco.com>> wrote: Hey folks, Sam had asked a reasonable set of questions regarding a patchset: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/222893/ The purpose of the patchset is to enable both RDO and RHOS as binary choices on RHEL platforms. I suspect over time, from-source deployments have the potential to become the norm, but the business logistics of such a change are going to take some significant time to sort out. Red Hat has two distros of OpenStack neither of which are from source. One is free called RDO and the other is paid called RHOS. In order to obtain support for RHEL VMs running in an OpenStack cloud, you must be running on RHOS RPM binaries. You must also be running on RHEL. It remains to be seen whether Red Hat will actively support Kolla deployments with a RHEL+RHOS set of packaging in containers, but my hunch says they will. It is in Kolla’s best interest to implement this model and not make it hard on Operators since many of them do indeed want Red Hat’s support structure for their OpenStack deployments. Now to Sam’s questions: "Where does 'binary' fit in if we have 'rdo' and 'rhos'? How many more do we add? What's our policy on adding a new type?” I’m not immediately clear on how binary fits in. We could make binary synonymous with the community supported version (RDO) while still implementing the binary RHOS version. Note Kolla does not “support” any distribution or deployment of OpenStack – Operators will have to look to their vendors for support. If everything between centos+rdo and rhel+rhos is mostly the same then I would think it would make more sense to just use the base ('rhel' in this case) to branch of any differences in the templates. This would also allow for the least amount of change and most generic implementation of this vendor specific packaging. This would also match what we do with oraclelinux, we do not have a special type for that and any specifics would be handled by an if statement around 'oraclelinux' and not some special type. I think what you are proposing is RHEL + RHOS and CENTOS + RDO. RDO also runs on RHEL. I want to enable Red Hat customers to make a choice to have a supported operating system but not a supported Cloud environment. The answer here is RHEL + RDO. This leads to full support down the road if the Operator chooses to pay Red Hat for it by an easy transition to RHOS. For oracle linux, I’d like to keep RDO for oracle linux and from source on oracle linux as choices. RDO also runs on oracle linux. Perhaps the patch set needs some later work here to address this point in more detail, but as is “binary” covers oracle linu. Perhaps what we should do is get rid of the binary type entirely. Ubuntu doesn’t really have a binary type, they have a cloudarchive type, so binary doesn’t make a lot of sense. Since Ubuntu to my knowledge doesn’t have two distributions of OpenStack the same logic wouldn’t apply to providing a full support onramp for Ubuntu customers. Oracle doesn’t provide a binary type either, their binary type is really RDO. FWIW I never liked the transition away from rdo in the repo names to binary. I guess I should have –1’ed those reviews back then, but I think its time to either revisit the decision or compromise that binary and rdo mean the same thing in a centos and rhel world. Regards -steve Since we implement multiple bases, some of which are not RPM based, it doesn't make much sense to me to have rhel and rdo as a type which is why we removed rdo in the first place in favor of the more generic 'binary'. As such the implied second question “How many more do we add?” sort of sounds like ‘how many do we support?”. The answer to the second question is none – again the Kolla community does not support any deployment of OpenStack. To the question as posed, how many we add, the answer is it is really up to community members willing to implement and maintain the work. In this case, I have personally stepped up to implement RHOS and maintain it going forward. Our policy on adding a new type could be simple or onerous. I prefer simple. If someone is willing to write the code and maintain it so that is stays in good working order, I see no harm in it remaining in tree. I don’t suspect there will be a lot of people interested in adding multiple distributions for a particular operating system. To my knowledge, and I could be incorrect, Red Hat is the only OpenStack company with a paid and community version available of OpenStack simultaneously and the paid version is only available on RHEL. I think the risk of RPM based distributions plus their type count spiraling out of manageability is low. Even if the risk were high, I’d prefer to keep an open mind to facilitate an increase in diversity in our community (which is already fantastically diverse, btw ;) I am open to questions, comments or concerns. Please feel free to voice them. Regards, -steve
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
