[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [rdo-list] Building overcloud images with TripleO and RDO



Hello,

Thanks for this Graeme. As the original reporter of this bug, it would
be good to understand how the CI process works for stable rdo release.

Since downgrading the galera version we have progressed to a point
where we now see keystone authentication failures in Step 6 due the use
of multidomain support.

So I suppose my question would be where the responsibility for
maintaining stable RDO lies, where to file bugs and who to contact and
what CI takes place currently with these packages and how it can be
improved.

>From my point of view, as a contributor rarely, deployer of OpenStack
mostly (and an operator intermittently), it would be good to have
images that are grabbed via yum, similar to the OSP deployment
mechanism. These are then the "known good" images and bugs can be filed
against these quickly and we reduce the huge variation in images people
use to deploy.

This would in turn feed back up to the creation of OSP images so I
imagine benefit commercial deployments as well.

It would then be good to be able to build images if we need to pull in
additional packages or customise (I agree with Graeme's point about
building these being entirely in keeping with Open Source tradition)
but currently we have a situation where there are multiple paths to
build an image and multiple images to download from if something is
broken.

The last time there was a thread on stable deployment, a lot of things
got fixed (like buggy introspection so many thanks for that as it now
works flawlessly) but it would be good to understand who to talk to
when things go wrong.

Currently I'm entirely unsure if its tripleo devs, RDO people, Red Hat
bugzilla, CentOS bugs, CentOS cloud sig.. etc.

If anyone could point me in the right direction I'd be grateful. Thanks
to Graeme for debugging the Galera version issue.

On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 04:36 +0100, Graeme Gillies wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I spent the last day or two trying to get to the bottom of the issue
> described at [1], which turned out to be because the version of
> galera
> that is in EPEL is higher than what we have in RDO mitaka stable, and
> when it attempts to get used, mariadb-galera-server fails to start.
>
> In order to understand why epel was being pulled in, how to stop it,
> and
> how this seemed to have slipped through CI/testing, I've been trying
> to
> look through and understand the whole state of the image building
> process across TripleO, RDO, and our CI.
>
> Unfortunately what I've discovered hasn't been great. It looks like
> there is at least 3 different paths being used to build images.
> Apologies if anything below is incorrect, it's incredibly convoluted
> and
> difficult to follow for someone who isn't intimately familiar with it
> all (like myself).
>
> 1) Using "openstack overcloud image build --all", which is I assume
> the
> method end users are supposed to be using, or at least it's the
> method
> documented in the docs. This uses diskimagebuilder under the hood,
> but
> the logic behind it is in python (under python-tripleoclient), with a
> lot of stuff hardcoded in
>
> 2) Using tripleo.sh, which, while it looks like calls "openstack
> overcloud image build", also has some of it's own logic and messes
> with
> things like the ~/.cache/image-create/source-repositories file, which
> I
> believe is how the issue at [1] passed CI in the first place
>
> 3) Using the ansible role ansible-role-tripleo-image-build [2] which
> looks like it also uses diskimagebuilder, but through a slightly
> different approach, by using an ansible library that can take an
> image
> definition via yaml (neat!) and then all diskimagebuilder using
> python-tripleo-common as an intermediary. Which is a different code
> path
> (though the code itself looks similar) to python-tripleoclient
>
> I feel this issue is hugely important as I believe it is one of the
> biggest barriers to having more people adopt RDO/TripleO. Too often
> people encounter issues with deploys that are hard to nail down
> because
> we have no real understanding exactly how they built the images, nor
> as
> an Operator I don't feel like I have a clear understanding of what I
> get
> when I use different options. The bug at [1] is a classic example of
> something I should never have hit.
>
> We do have stable images available at [3] (built using method 3)
> however
> there are a number of problems with just using them
>
> 1) I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to want to build
> their
> own images. It's part of the Open Source philosophy, we want things
> to
> be Open and we want to understand how things work, so we can
> customise,
> extend, and troubleshoot ourselves. If your image building process is
> so
> convoluted that you have to say "just use our prebuilt ones", then
> you
> have done something wrong.
>
> 2) The images don't get updated (they current mitaka ones were built
> in
> April)
>
> 3) There is actually nowhere on the RDO website, nor the tripleo
> website, that actually references their location. So as a new user,
> you
> have exactly zero chance of finding these images and using them.
>
> I'm not sure what the best process is to start improving this, but it
> looks like it's complicated enough and involves enough moving pieces
> that a spec against tripleo might be the way to go? I am thinking the
> goal would be to move towards everyone having one way, one code path,
> for building images with TripleO, that could be utilised by all use
> cases out there.
>
> My thinking is the method would take image definitions in a yaml
> format
> similar to how ansible-role-tripleo-image-build works, and we can
> just
> ship a bunch of different yaml files for all the different image
> scenarios people might want. e.g.
>
> /usr/share/tripleo-images/centos-7-x86_64-mitaka-cbs.yaml
> /usr/share/tripleo-images/centos-7-x86_64-mitaka-trunk.yaml
> /usr/share/tripleo-images/centos-7-x86_64-trunk.yaml
>
> Etc etc. you could then have a symlink called default.yaml which
> points
> to whatever scenario you wish people to use by default, and the
> scenario
> could be overwritten by a command line argument. Basically this is
> exactly how mock [4] works, and has been proven to be a nice, clean,
> easy to use workflow for people to understand. The added bonus is if
> people wanted to do their own images, they could copy one of the
> existing files as a template to start with.
>
> If people feel this is worthwhile (and I hope they do), I'm
> interested
> in understanding what the next steps would be to get this to happen.
>
> Regards,
>
> Graeme
>
> [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1365884
> [2] https://github.com/redhat-openstack/ansible-role-tripleo-image-bu
> ild
> [3]
> http://buildlogs.centos.org/centos/7/cloud/x86_64/tripleo_images/mita
> ka/cbs/
> [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mock
> --
> Graeme Gillies
> Principal Systems Administrator
> Openstack Infrastructure
> Red Hat Australia
>
> _______________________________________________
> rdo-list mailing list
> rdo-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rdo-list
>
> To unsubscribe: rdo-list-unsubscribe redhat com
--
Regards,

Christopher Brown
OpenStack Engineer
OCF plc


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]