Osquery [1] could also be considered as providing a lot of useful informations in a convenient way.
[1] https://osquery.io/ On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:20 PM, Vladimir Kozhukalov < vkozhuka...@mirantis.com> wrote: > Igor, > > I can not agree more. Wherever possible we should > use existent mature solutions. Ansible is really > convenient and well known solution, let's try to > use it. > > Yet another thing should be taken into account. > One of Shotgun features is diagnostic report > that could then be attached to bugs to identify > the content of env. This report could also be > used to reproduce env and then fight a bug. > I'd like we to have this kind of report. > Is it possible to implement such a feature > using Ansible? If yes, then let's switch to Ansible > as soon as possible. > > > > Vladimir Kozhukalov > > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 3:31 PM, Igor Kalnitsky <ikalnit...@mirantis.com> > wrote: > >> Neil Jerram wrote: >> > But isn't Ansible also over-complicated for just running commands over >> SSH? >> >> It may be not so "simple" to ignore that. Ansible has a lot of modules >> which might be very helpful. For instance, Shotgun makes a database >> dump and there're Ansible modules with the same functionality [1]. >> >> Don't think I advocate Ansible as a replacement. My point is, let's >> think about reusing ready solutions. :) >> >> - igor >> >> >> [1]: http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/list_of_database_modules.html >> >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Neil Jerram <neil.jer...@metaswitch.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > FWIW, as a naive bystander: >> > >> > On 30/03/16 11:06, Igor Kalnitsky wrote: >> >> Hey Fuelers, >> >> >> >> I know that you probably wouldn't like to hear that, but in my opinion >> >> Fuel has to stop using Shotgun. It's nothing more but a command runner >> >> over SSH. Besides, it has well known issues such as retrieving remote >> >> directories with broken symlinks inside. >> > >> > It makes sense to me that a command runner over SSH might not need to be >> > a whole Fuel-specific component. >> > >> >> So I propose to find a modern alternative and reuse it. If we stop >> >> supporting Shotgun, we can spend extra time to focus on more important >> >> things. >> >> >> >> As an example, we can consider to use Ansible. It should not be tricky >> >> to generate Ansible playbook instead of generating Shotgun one. >> >> Ansible is a well known tool for devops and cloud operators, and they >> >> we will only benefit if we provide possibility to extend diagnostic >> >> recipes in usual (for them) way. What do you think? >> > >> > But isn't Ansible also over-complicated for just running commands over >> SSH? >> > >> > Neil >> > >> > >> > >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Adam Heczko Security Engineer @ Mirantis Inc.
__________________________________________________________________________ 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
