Hybrid deployments #563
Hybrid deployments #563
Conversation
|
Working on testing this. I think it "works" but I wanted some feedback of what I'm missing or not implementing correctly. |
radez
force-pushed
the
hybrid
branch
2 times, most recently
from
1731073 to
2d70df6
Compare
|
re: issue #536 |
radez
force-pushed
the
hybrid
branch
2 times, most recently
from
faee549 to
9e0ea2c
Compare
radez
force-pushed
the
hybrid
branch
2 times, most recently
from
c656c10 to
22cec71
Compare
ansible/mno-deploy.yml
Outdated
| - role: boot-iso | ||
| vars: | ||
| inventory_group: hv_vm | ||
| index: "{{ hybrid_worker_count }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
In the context of someone running an ACM scale test where all of the hv_vm entries are actually say SNOs, does this task dump thousands of lines of skipped tasks or does it just skip the role? If it dumps thousands of lines, I think we should revisit how this is performed perhaps using a different inventory group.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're right it does dump thousands of lines. I had looked at adding a loop_var in this at one point to make the output more meaningful
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we could instead of including another boot-iso role here over hv_vm workers, maybe we just copy the desired number of hv_vm we want to use under workers instead. I will think of a more automated way to accomplish this as well. WDYT?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have tried a deployment where I removed this and just copied and pasted my vm workers to workers section. This deployed successfully and I think is a better approach in the near term. It allows us to remove the hybrid_worker_count var which I think will cause confusion for many consumers of jetlag without including a background on setting up hypervisors and when the var is to be used. WDYT?
radez
force-pushed
the
hybrid
branch
2 times, most recently
from
530689d to
36d31d4
Compare
ansible/mno-deploy.yml
Outdated
| - role: boot-iso | ||
| vars: | ||
| inventory_group: hv_vm | ||
| index: "{{ hybrid_worker_count }}" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm wondering if we could instead of including another boot-iso role here over hv_vm workers, maybe we just copy the desired number of hv_vm we want to use under workers instead. I will think of a more automated way to accomplish this as well. WDYT?
|
I think this might need to be reopened so it doesn't include the commit that is already merged. |
| {% set ctr.vm = ctr.vm + 1 %} | ||
| {% endfor %} | ||
| {% endif %} | ||
|
|
||
| {% endfor %} | ||
|
|
||
| [hv_vm:vars] | ||
| role=worker |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
To extend on the thought of workers always under [workers] we could add to the template here that hybrid_worker_count generates the worker entries under [worker]. The trade off here would be "Semi-duplicated" entries per worker - one under hv_vm for vm creation and one entry under worker for that VM to become a worker. With that we can treat the libvirt workers more like traditional workers and eliminate some of the other touch points in this PR.
It would also eliminate the need to duplicate these worker specific entries under [hv_vm:vars]
|
[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED This pull-request has been approved by: akrzos, radez The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here. The pull request process is described here
Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:
Approvers can indicate their approval by writing |
Baremetal control plane and virtual workers.
I think this will also do baremetal control plane and workers and virtual workers.